Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:36:00 -
[1]
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.
Enter Tux's Need for Speed. His blog addresses the times when someone is running with too much speed and some possible changes to items affecting ship movement.
But wait, there's more! Some discussion about the much debated Amarr boost. Are some improvements in the future for some Amarr ships?
Read the blog and find out!
kieron Community Manager, EVE Online |
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:43:00 -
[2]
Edited by: FireFoxx80 on 15/02/2007 16:47:17 First - Yarr!
Why not just make MWD's have a 'cooldown' period? Every cycle causes the module to be unusable for 50% of it's duration time, Interceptors then have a fixed bonus to this cooldown so that they can sustain MWD almost as much as they can now.
Reinforced Bulkheads: Does anyone actually use these?
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Wizzkidy
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:49:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Wizzkidy on 15/02/2007 16:45:40 2nd again :/
ammar boost :o i like it alot!
|
niroshido
Caldari Vortex. Maelstrom Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:50:00 -
[4]
i agree, i think that nerfing the MWD the way u recommend in the dev blog will ultimatly destroy the ceptor, especially when the ceptor is designed to utilise a warp dist, webb a MWD and sensor booster, by making the ceptor require a cap booster u take 1 of those important mods out of the mid slot
i'd rather see a cool off period rather than a mod such as a cap booster taking up my mid slots
|
Ikkajo
Minmatar Sirius Cybernetics Corpotation
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:52:00 -
[5]
I'm a miner, so not too much there that effects me, but overall it sounds like a good set of plans.
One suggestion for MWD is to combine it with the Heat(TM) effects that seem to be coming. Think of the MWD as a really big supercharger. Overdriving your engine so much has to cause a huge amount of heat generation that the hull must soak and dissipate. Run it long enough and it overheats and cooks everything else. The bigger the ship the less ability to quickly shed heat (this has a basis in real physics relating volume to surface area ratios).
|
Ficti0n
FireTech Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:54:00 -
[6]
Finally an amaar boost!
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Even the Matrix had glitches. Spoon, Lag, whats the difference... Neo had to fight for an entire movie to learn how to stop time. We do it every day in Jita.
|
Wizzkidy
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:55:00 -
[7]
Oh Joy on confimation on the ammar boost!!!!!!!!!!
about time and I can't wait.
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:55:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ikkajo I'm a miner, so not too much there that effects me, but overall it sounds like a good set of plans.
One suggestion for MWD is to combine it with the Heat(TM) effects that seem to be coming. Think of the MWD as a really big supercharger. Overdriving your engine so much has to cause a huge amount of heat generation that the hull must soak and dissipate. Run it long enough and it overheats and cooks everything else. The bigger the ship the less ability to quickly shed heat (this has a basis in real physics relating volume to surface area ratios).
That makes sense; it would work quite well with those crappy minmatar ships. Those tin-foily bits look a bit like heatsinks.
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
D2O HeavyWater
Amarr Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 16:55:00 -
[9]
About time they got on to fixing/nerfing the nano ships. Its soul destroying watchin em outrun my cruise missiles.
In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.
|
Nir
The Doldrums
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:09:00 -
[10]
All this talk of Amarr being the cap warfare race..
Could it be that Nosferatu are becoming Amarr racial Ewar? i.e. non-Amarr ships would suck at it? Just speculating.
|
|
Karash Amerius
Amarr O.E.C
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:11:00 -
[11]
How about just giving all Amarr ships a 5% or 10% bonus to laser capacitor use reduction and rebalance all the ships to have a 3rd bonus. The laser cap reduction doesnt help as its almost required anyway to run lasers.
Merc Blog |
Zirator
Times of Ancar THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:15:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Zirator on 15/02/2007 17:11:28 I have been thinking about a possible solution to those nano ships buzzing around at the moment. I think the main point of the ballancing of those ships should be that it doesn't affect small ships.
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.
Do this in such a way that they work on inties as they do now. Have a mediocre effect on cruiser sized ships. And that they only have a small effect on BS.
Thoughts please.
|
Chronus26
Gallente Vale Heavy Industries SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:16:00 -
[13]
Good to hear some official thoughts on the subjects, and I find myself agreeing with many of the potential solutions there. I'm not sure about your proposed changes to MWDS, but maybe thats just me being used to how things have been previously.
While I feel the problems with Amarr are somewhat over-emphasized by the forum community, i'm glad you've taken a look and identified the areas upon which need to be improved, even if you have no definate changes in mind yet, its a good start.
Cheers for the blog, I always enjoy reading a what Tux has to say. -----
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:18:00 -
[14]
The MWD capacitor use increase sounds pretty harsh as far as inties and interdictors are concerned. Perhaps those ships should get a bonus to mwd cap consumption?
|
Zirator
Times of Ancar THE R0NIN
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:19:00 -
[15]
Originally by: welsh wizard The MWD capacitor use increase sounds pretty harsh as far as inties and interdictors are concerned. Perhaps those ships should get a bonus to mwd cap consumption?
That is my main concern as well. I don't want my beloved small ships get hit by a nerfbat.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:20:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 15/02/2007 17:23:50 This blog delivers.
However, I don't understand why you consider lowering the EM armor resist to increase the shield armor resist as a "worst case" idea.
EANMs boost equally the all resists, but it's only because their use has been generalized that the issue about EM damage on armor became really apparent. Nerfing EANMs in any way would be a move against the wrong target, and you'd expose yourself to see another issue like that crop up someday... ------------------------------------------ Every ship has a base 60-70% resist against the primary damage type of the race that is the least able to vary it's damage types. |
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:21:00 -
[17]
Edited by: welsh wizard on 15/02/2007 17:18:12 On further reflection if the Speed:Cap use ratio works out well.... Aslong as every small ship under about 7km/s isn't hit too hard by it. I think 6-7km/s for an interceptor is a fair enough sustainable speed for small ships.
|
Godar Marak
Amarr Return Of Red Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:25:00 -
[18]
Yes finally!
FOR THE WIN, FOR THE WIN! -------------------- '\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/' Cant we all just get along?
|
Mastin Dragonfly
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:26:00 -
[19]
After a crap day at work, this sure made my day!
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:26:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Goumindong on 15/02/2007 17:23:10 Tux,
The Armageddon is the strongest of the Amarran battleships, and the only one that currently really fills a role(well). I would be wary, especialy if implementing EANM changes of increasing its fitting.
Apoc role change though, that is awesome. Very awesome.
Is there any word on scraping the "one bonus" idea and allowing all races to use lasers if they so please while giving the ships a real second bonus?
Any word on bringing the Prophecy/Cyclone/Ferox in line with the brutix? ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
|
Redwolf
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:26:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Shadowsword This blog delivers.
I thought I misread the blog because to me it says "we're not sure how we are going to fix it, and there is no way it will be fixed in the near future".
---- It's great being Amarr, ain't it? |
Br0wn 0ps
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:29:00 -
[22]
Regarding MWDs, have you thought about getting rid of the % increase, and just giving a set speed increase? Regardless of what is done, Interceptors should always have the ability to maintain their MWD, as that is their role.
Hmmm, going to go off to buy up all the MWD cap hardwires that I can find...muahahahahahahahahha
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:29:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Redwolf
Originally by: Shadowsword This blog delivers.
I thought I misread the blog because to me it says "we're not sure how we are going to fix it, and there is no way it will be fixed in the near future".
At least it says that CCP hasn't forgotten that those issues exist, and the more they think about this, less likely are the chances that the "fix" will break something else for some fotm players to exploit... ------------------------------------------ Every ship has a base 60-70% resist against the primary damage type of the race that is the least able to vary it's damage types. |
Steppa
Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:31:00 -
[24]
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?
|
Adago Vilon
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:31:00 -
[25]
Re: MWD and the fiddle with the hull mods.
Why not make the use of mwd's significantly decrease agility? The counter to that being the inertia stabiliser.
So, with mwd on you can: Go fast - a good thing Sustain speed (with cap charges) to cover long distances - a good thing However you can no longer turn tight circles around your enemies while maintaining very high speeds - a good thing from the balance side of things.
It also means the inertial stab will continue to have a purpose. If you want to orbit faster, fit these - although they won't have such a profound effect as the mwd has hit your agility. Using an inertial stab is effectively claiming agility back when the mwd is in use.
|
Fon Revedhort
Aeria Gloris Inc United Legion
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:31:00 -
[26]
Tux, will you adress beams in only the fittings aspect or might change something as well? For instance:
- Are Quad Beam's stats really appropriate to a beam laser group or they could be rewised?
- How about introducing something like m-Tachs? I mean, a medium-sized beam laser with increased damage output/alfastrike/range etc. and worsened tracking/cap consumption and fittings?
|
Tar om
Minmatar Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:35:00 -
[27]
For Inties, swap their damage bonus for MWD cap use bonus. That'll make them interceptors, not web/scram/killers -- We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net
"The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions." |
Quutar
Caldari Auraxian Irregulars
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:42:00 -
[28]
make istabs unique like DCU
Not finding research slots in Empire Space? Try Quutar Research Services. |
Wizzkidy
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:42:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tuxford damn I was gonna post way more but I got to go, will hopefully update this first thing in the morning or later tonight.
Can I have your babies please
|
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:47:00 -
[30]
Not to spoil the Amarr players their maybe-deserved buff, but why does the Armageddon need fitting help? I was under the impression that this ship is definitely among the top 3 favorite fleet battleships in the entire game - I keep seeing tons and tons of them fielded. They're cheap, and they got gank... why change them? Frankly, I think that "fleet battleship" is a role too, you know? That's what everyone calls so defined about the Rokh anyway (which is one of the least used fleet battleships in the game, by the way, due to its sheer pricing).
I'd rather see the Apocalypse reworked into something that will suit the needs of the solo players better. Then you have a specific role for each from the get-go, without affecting existing fleet ship balance much. Of course, how the Abaddon fits into that is something I can't judge.
|
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:50:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 15/02/2007 17:48:06 Nice blog, I especially liked the 'There might actually be Khanid MkII within the next 10 years' part.
But please, whatever you do about nanoships, do not stacking nerf the agility bonus. Millions of indies would suddenly cry out in fear and then be suddenly silenced... --------- There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Kestrel
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:50:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Ishina Fel Not to spoil the Amarr players their maybe-deserved buff, but why does the Armageddon need fitting help? I was under the impression that this ship is definitely among the top 3 favorite fleet battleships in the entire game - I keep seeing tons and tons of them fielded. They're cheap, and they got gank... why change them? Frankly, I think that "fleet battleship" is a role too, you know? That's what everyone calls so defined about the Rokh anyway (which is one of the least used fleet battleships in the game, by the way, due to its sheer pricing).
I'd rather see the Apocalypse reworked into something that will suit the needs of the solo players better. Then you have a specific role for each from the get-go, without affecting existing fleet ship balance much. Of course, how the Abaddon fits into that is something I can't judge.
You answered your own question buddy, Rohk is ver very expensive not only in base cost, but in fittings compared to 'geddon. The fittings are more expensive becuase both Caldari gunships and Gallente gunships use hybrid turrets/magstabs.
|
Nordvargr
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:52:00 -
[33]
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.
This makes it much harder to do perma-MWD setups without gimping MWDs for the rest of us.
|
StoreSlem
Minmatar 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:53:00 -
[34]
Improve Amarr ships by reducing laser PG and maybe also CPU needs. Eliminate or lower the needs for several slots of fitting upgrades, giving a slight boost to all laser platforms.
Nerf nano ships by giving the nanos/istabs actual disadvantages and fitting reqs. Reduce PG by %, reduce Armor by %. Oh and fix tracking so that fast orbitting ships can use turrets like they should be able to. That's an obvious bug in how the transversal is calculated. "If you were experiencing a lag, it was not server related." |
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:54:00 -
[35]
Tux,
It seems this could be a significant hit for very small ships that rely on speed alone to live. Are you planning on scaling the cap use:speed ratio a little differently for interceptors/interdictors? It's already difficult enough having to contend with nos & web at anything under 6km/s.
Perhaps 5-6km/s should be sustainable on smaller ships, perhaps a way to do it would be to factor in a ships mass when it comes to cap use at faster speeds?
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:56:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 15/02/2007 17:52:39
Originally by: blog One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE.
You have to be careful here to still keep Eve fun to play... it doesnt matter if you build the ultimate space strategy game if all players are doing is watching energy bars go down on eachother (woa, that sounds soo kinky :p). Personally im amongst the ones who think fast reflexes is part of the fun of combat...
--- Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune |
Malena Panic
Gallente Acme Technologies Incorporated Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:58:00 -
[37]
Change the max MWD speed boost from ~500% to ~200%; leave everything else the same.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:58:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Tuxford I'm actually gonna make an attempt to answer some of these questions here.
Awesome.
Another.
Are the MWD changes going to be universal accross the size spectrum? What assurances that smaller minmatar speed based ships such as the stabber and vagabond dont take unreasonable hits?
---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
XoPhyte
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:59:00 -
[39]
Could we get more information on these MWD changes will affect interceptors (and perhaps dictors). Will these ships be exempt from these changes, or perhaps these ships will have special bonuses for MWD?
--- Siggy Starts Here---
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Most people in eve would rather win than have a good fight
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:00:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Ishina Fel Not to spoil the Amarr players their maybe-deserved buff, but why does the Armageddon need fitting help? I was under the impression that this ship is definitely among the top 3 favorite fleet battleships in the entire game - I keep seeing tons and tons of them fielded. They're cheap, and they got gank... why change them? Frankly, I think that "fleet battleship" is a role too, you know? That's what everyone calls so defined about the Rokh anyway (which is one of the least used fleet battleships in the game, by the way, due to its sheer pricing).
I'd rather see the Apocalypse reworked into something that will suit the needs of the solo players better. Then you have a specific role for each from the get-go, without affecting existing fleet ship balance much. Of course, how the Abaddon fits into that is something I can't judge.
You answered your own question buddy, Rohk is ver very expensive not only in base cost, but in fittings compared to 'geddon. The fittings are more expensive becuase both Caldari gunships and Gallente gunships use hybrid turrets/magstabs.
Naw, he is right. The Geddon is still a good battleship. Increasing its fitting is dangerous. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:07:00 -
[41]
Tuxford, in regards to Ammar, Fitting is the most pressing issue. Everything else depends on this, You can fix every other Ammar issue out there, but the issue is moot if you can't fit the weapons to the ship. If I recall correctly, with enginnering 5 and AWU3, I needed a fitting mod to fit 7 mid sized larged tech I turrets to a geddon. Not even tech I destroyers are that tight on PG fitting, except for the ammar one of course. On the subject of Omni tanks, I think it is important to note that invuln fields are not decried nearly as much as EAM modules. Let's look at the similarities first, they both, because of stacking penalty, are not as effective as active hardeners resist wise, they are close, but not quite. (2 invuln +DCU and 2 EAN + DCU) The difference is that the shield version requires significantly more cap and CPU than the single active hardener version. There is no reason besides isk, not to use EAN II's. If my Main had the skills to use EAN II's, I would swap them for the N-type hardeners in a heartbeat. It would save me another slot, and save me enough cpu to add another heatsink
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:10:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: Ishina Fel Not to spoil the Amarr players their maybe-deserved buff, but why does the Armageddon need fitting help? I was under the impression that this ship is definitely among the top 3 favorite fleet battleships in the entire game - I keep seeing tons and tons of them fielded. They're cheap, and they got gank... why change them? Frankly, I think that "fleet battleship" is a role too, you know? That's what everyone calls so defined about the Rokh anyway (which is one of the least used fleet battleships in the game, by the way, due to its sheer pricing).
I'd rather see the Apocalypse reworked into something that will suit the needs of the solo players better. Then you have a specific role for each from the get-go, without affecting existing fleet ship balance much. Of course, how the Abaddon fits into that is something I can't judge.
You answered your own question buddy, Rohk is ver very expensive not only in base cost, but in fittings compared to 'geddon. The fittings are more expensive becuase both Caldari gunships and Gallente gunships use hybrid turrets/magstabs.
Naw, he is right. The Geddon is still a good battleship. Increasing its fitting is dangerous.
I don't understand, I agrred with him and elaborated a bit on why, and you say that I am wrong and he is right?
|
Anominity
Amarr Exanimo Inc Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:21:00 -
[43]
About the possibility of swapping around base resists.
Is it possible we could make it so that every race gets an equal percentage bonus to their racial enemies damage type, because currently as it stands (And i have pointed this out before) is that Minmatar get a 25% damage reduction on EM (60% - 70%) and Amarr get an 11% damage reduction on Explosive (10% - 20%) with Gallente and Caldari coming in between there with 13% and 15% if i recall correctly.
I have never understood why a flat point increase was implemented on these, but i guess that might just have been overlooked.
Everything else in the blog <3 (Agree with others about Geddon, it needs no more fitting, your proposed Beam fitting adjustments should take care of anything there)
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:27:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Audri Fisher
I don't understand, I agrred with him and elaborated a bit on why, and you say that I am wrong and he is right?
I just read wrong then. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Cayloron
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:31:00 -
[45]
mabey I'm missing something but how does moving EM damage mitigation from armor to shields help Amarr? one of our primary damage types IS EM, and moving that mitigation from the non replenishing armor to the recharging shields seems more of a nerf to amarr than a bonus.
Course I'm not a combat pilot, so I could be wrong.
|
Emily Spankratchet
Minmatar Pragmatics
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:34:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Emily Spankratchet on 15/02/2007 18:32:25
Originally by: Tuxford ... its kind of hard to impliment so it doesn't hurt "proper use" of mwd. Sometimes you just got to run it for a few cycles until you get into range.
Yay. This is my biggest worry with the nano problem - if you nerf too hard, then MWD-using blaster and autocannon boats are going to have a hard time getting into combat range.
Originally by: Leandro Salazar But please, whatever you do about nanoships, do not stacking nerf the agility bonus. Millions of indies would suddenly cry out in fear and then be suddenly silenced...
Yup, that's my worry too. Agility bonuses are essential if you actually want to get those things into warp this century.
|
Kovid
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:39:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Kovid on 15/02/2007 18:36:58 The races have clearly defined tendencies toward technologies. This also makes it esay for them to specialize and get a the highest results for the least time. The and Amarr and Gal have armor tanks, Caldari shield. Minmatar, both. Twice the time to learn if you don't limit setups or rule out certain ships. Now the latest rage has given them the ability to speed tank. Granted they had that before in limited amounts. But now everyone can speed tank with the nano-stab craze including the Amarr. And you don't even need much in skills, if any, for this new speed tank fad.
So make it so the Minmatar can speed tank viably but you might want to adjust it a bit. Don't mess up interceptors. If you make MWD it more cap intensive or charge based, it will get ugly as NOS already is all over the place. Oh wait Amarr have bonuses for NOS don't they?
I don't see Amarr as bad as people complain. No ammo and thick tanks in the age of more prolonged battles is nice. The Amarageddon is a great ship and I see plenty. Hard to beat the Apoc for ratting.
So why were istabs and such changed in the first place that brought the speed craze along? And we are talking about battleships right? Afterall that's what is making people scratch their heads. That and it's hard to affect their sheer HPs and use smaller class modules like NOS on them.
---------------------------------- An informal Star Fraction FAQ | ---------------------------------- |
Karash Amerius
Amarr O.E.C
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:42:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Karash Amerius on 15/02/2007 18:41:36 I think I speak for a lot of players when asking what specific changes you are considering for the Khanid based ships. There has been so many different ideas put out in the forums for a year and a half that its hard to know which CCP are actually leaning towards. In an RP sense, the Khanid ships are my favorite to fly...I would love to see their usefulness and roles expand.
Edit: I have always stated that Amarr needs to have huge capacitors and their EW to include capacitor warfare in a wide array of ships. Would love to see this become a reality, and would give the Amarr a lot more flavor...plus add to their supposed role of the best armor tanking race (which we are not).
Merc Blog |
gordon cain
Minmatar x13 Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:50:00 -
[49]
I fly one of these "nanophoons" and have several pimped to the extreme along with tons of implants to go with it.
I think the speed issue you are adressing is very needed and I simply miss the: "look a small fleet, lets get the heavies out and nuke them".
Just make sure you make the BS heavy hitters and tankers and cruiser and down more agile etc.
/me does the happy dance.
Gordon Cain
|
Weirda
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:53:00 -
[50]
@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."
@Shadowsword "However, I don't understand why you consider lowering the EM armor resist to increase the shield armor resist as a "worst case" idea." As well as Minmatar, Weirda is AVID Amarr pilot. This solution is 'Worst Case' to Weirda for following: Give people reason to fit active/specific EM hardener, and they will... and you will see higher EM resist then you do currently. This is not a 'good thing'.
@Timeframe Would really like to see at least ONE thing addressed sooner (or at same time) as EM damage stuff: Medium Beam Laser (the small variant) fittings lowered. If you could just hit that one gun with even a couple grid, that would be wonderful.
thanks Tux! and again props to Zirator for a very good idea!
__ Weirda Nosferatu - Time for Change |
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:56:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Karash Amerius Edited by: Karash Amerius on 15/02/2007 18:41:36 I think I speak for a lot of players when asking what specific changes you are considering for the Khanid based ships. There has been so many different ideas put out in the forums for a year and a half that its hard to know which CCP are actually leaning towards. In an RP sense, the Khanid ships are my favorite to fly...I would love to see their usefulness and roles expand.
You clearly need to get out and read the Ships and Modules forum more.
Khanid Mk.II has been a big topic there and I believe/hope that the Khanid fix will heavily rely on that. --------- There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Kestrel
|
Anator Namon
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 18:59:00 -
[52]
I think that the Apoc be a NOS boat. I haven't flown it so not sure how it handles now. One thing is that both NOS and Lasers are high slots... The 5% bonus to Cap does seem fairly cap warfarish.
Additionally, I think that instead of having cap use of MWD (and AB?) be a function of velocity, make it a function of momentum. Most people don't have a problem with interceptors zipping about. They have a problem with BC or equivilent damaging ships being able to zip in and zip out. So it is the nanoBS which should be nerfed the most, and nerfing based on momentum would do this.
No other nerfs would be needed. A BS is huge compared to a Interceptor, and so the 3km/s BS would take a huge amount of Cap. The problem always was that there wasn't enough trade off for high speed. For low speed, the tradeoffs were comparable.. but once high speed is reached, the tradeoffs aren't comparable and it becomes pwn.
|
ZaKma
Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:01:00 -
[53]
Kill nanophoons!
|
Vincent R
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:02:00 -
[54]
I agree that some nano setups are ridiculous, but one starts to wonder what role minmatar ships have if speed is nerfed. They're so fragile that most of them can't go 1v1 with other ships in the same class, and their main attraction gets taken away (or at least reduced)?
|
Sakura Nihil
Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:12:00 -
[55]
Solution to nanophoons? Huginns, not a nerf. I like the boosting of the Amarr ships though, its about time.
|
Hockston Axe
Amarr HocksCorp
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:17:00 -
[56]
IĆm genuinely surprised. IĆd assumed that the long stickied discussion thread was like the one for the cargohold BPO upgrades (& BPC not upgrades); letĆem whine and get it out of their system but nothing would be done. I guess since it didnĆt affect fighting that one didnĆt really matterŕ
Please just donĆt kill my Armageddon salvager/looter. It has a full Local setup and still only does around 200m/s base. Agility being the most important part for looting.
+Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity- this one stuck me as least invasive to my uses.
Amarr: All IĆve ever wanted was to change up damage types. It sucks being Sansha/Blood only for any kind of efficient NPCing. I already run with 44 individual crystals in a mission. I wouldnĆt mind dropping a cap boost 800 for a few dozen more crystals if they let me change up some things.
|
Thoric Frosthammer
The Syndicate Inc INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:18:00 -
[57]
Scaling MWD cap use by speed is fine, but you should also scale it by ship size. Battleships should have a much sharper curve than interdictors. This potentially lets you have individual control over ship types max speed without having to touch any other module really. After you do that, you can then tweak nanos and stabilizers and overdrives if you still think it's needed.
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:22:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Tuxford
Quote: How about a cool down period on mwd?
I've thought about and I'm mostly shying away from it because its kind of hard to impliment so it doesn't hurt "proper use" of mwd. Sometimes you just got to run it for a few cycles until you get into range. I can see a solution using a some sort of cool down where the cooldown period would basically be dependent on how long you've kept it going.
Maybe then introducing it into the heat model is the way to go then, as someone suggested above.
The other alternative is to have it rely on a percentage of cap per cycle, rather than the absolute value it currently resides on.
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Ryysa
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:25:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Tuxford I'm actually gonna make an attempt to answer some of these questions here.
Awesome.
Another.
Are the MWD changes going to be universal accross the size spectrum? What assurances that smaller minmatar speed based ships such as the stabber and vagabond dont take unreasonable hits?
QFT, also goes for all inties.
How do you nerf nanophoon, nanodomi and nanocurse without nerfing stabber, jaguar, crow ?
Hint, the former depend on nos to fuel their mwd, while the latter do not.
N.F.F. Recruitment |
Helmut Rul
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:29:00 -
[60]
While i certainly understand that the people that use Khanid ships want them to be more viable in combat, I must admit that i fear that the Khanid ships if they are getting boosted as suggested in the Khanid mk II thread will utterly eclipse the Caldari missile boats due to the fact that armortanking allow you to tank and have spare utility slots.
|
|
mallina
Caldari Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:33:00 -
[61]
in regards to the Amarr boost, i personally think the Geddon is fine in regards to its Powergrid, but moreover has issues with CPU. if i want closerange setup worth a damn i have to fork out 30-40mil for some faction adaptive nanos (or at least 10 for some 'refuge' ones) because im all out of CPU.
increasing the CPU on the Geddon, even if only by a small amount (25-35) would work wonders in regards to the ease of actually fitting the damn thing.
i also think that the Geddon is designed and should not be changed to fit the purpose of a Fleet battleship. whilst it may perform well in this case at current, i think it is more suited for short-med range small gang pvp with Pulse equipped, which its current PG more than suits - increasing the PG to make it fit more tachs will only make it a pwnmobile with megapulse.
IMO the apoc should be the fleet ship due to high PG and ability to sustain guns b/c of cap. it does need a bit of a boost in terms of either dmg output or range, tho (not both)
abaddon atm is abit hopeless. its a pwnmobile on SiSi but like a 200mph supercar it guzzles juice insanely fast and has less room for charges than a Geddon
|
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:33:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Helmut Rul While i certainly understand that the people that use Khanid ships want them to be more viable in combat, I must admit that i fear that the Khanid ships if they are getting boosted as suggested in the Khanid mk II thread will utterly eclipse the Caldari missile boats due to the fact that armortanking allow you to tank and have spare utility slots.
Which is perfectly balanced out by armortanking NOT allowing you to tank and fit a full rack of BCUs... --------- There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Kestrel
|
Superbus Maximus
Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:46:00 -
[63]
Nerfing speed again are we I think its been nerfed enough. Nerfing it again hampers a smaller groups abbility to take on a larger one. I think nerfing it is just taking away more from the tactical point of the game and making it more of a mass more ships, people/bigger ships and we win sort of thing. Sig removed - For more info mail us at [email protected] - Taiatia |
Tarri
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 19:57:00 -
[64]
I can help you with oomph :) http://www.oomph.de/ ----
|
Godar Marak
Amarr Return Of Red Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:04:00 -
[65]
Hmm Amarr.
I think the Abaddon ship has something I would like to see more of. Amarr needs the choice to either tank or gank, but that would mean much more cap and higher damage with our guns.
Removing cap bonus while buffing cap and damage might be a good compromise.
-------------------- '\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/' Cant we all just get along?
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:10:00 -
[66]
My thoughts on what makes speed overpowered are that, first, if you assume that if something meets at least one of these qualifications, it may require rebalancing:
1. The best or only way to counter something is with more of the same. 2. Using a technique, module, or etc is always the best choice, no matter what the situation is. 3. Countering a tactic requires an invested effort well out of proportion with the effort put into executing the initial tactic.
As an example of all three, just look back to the old Gankageddon, known to be able to pop other battleships at 30km before they could even align, or pre-nerfed ECM on, say, a Dominix (where victory could require getting lucky and jamming the ECM-dominix before he jams you).
Now, one thing that you have to remember about speed is that if you nerf it too much, you'll remove something fun from the game, and its generally best to avoid that. However, it is very clear that speed does need some adjustment.
The nanophoon is a good example, but its not the only one. The thing about the nanophoon, though, is that its not just using speed to be effective, it also uses NOS, drones, and missiles, which are unaffected by the player's speed to be effective, which is what makes them particularly hard to deal with. Another example is the vagabond - even if they aren't nearly as annoying since they nerfed warp core stabilizers - since it has speed, firepower, tracking bonuses, range, and a respectable shield tank, all in one.
I'm not really against speedy nanophoons and things like that, but there is a profound body of evidence that there is a point where at a certain speed, you become virtually invincible. If you're in a ship that goes 7, 8, or even up to 12km/s, no turret will be able to track you if you don't let it, no missile will be able to catch you nor have the explosion velocity to affect you, and even if you get webbed (which shouldn't happen since you can command range so effectively), you can coast out of web range before you decelerate significantly, or be reduced simply to a slightly less impressive but still overwhelming speed. Sure, it may cost you billions to get a full snake set, gistii MWDs, and domination nanofibers, but you can't justify balance based on market price, especially since now that Inertia Stablizers have made it possible to achieve fast speeds inexpensively. The only way you could catch something like a nanophoon or a vagabond with that speed would be with even more speed of your own, which is, if you ask me, definitively imbalanced.
At a guess, I would think the addition of stacking nerfs to nanofibers and other speed-increasing mods proposed would balance out the problem pretty effectively, as should a well-designed and implemented change to Energy Vampires, whatever it may be. I do not think a change to microwarpdrives is necessary, and I would avoid it at all costs. One thing that you should nerf is Snake Implants, because, seriously, they are utterly absurd now and they were before inertial stabilizers came out, too.
That said, if a nanophoon, nanodominix, or vagabond could go 4km/s at maximum, it would be effective and fun, but more importantly something people could actually deal with, since an interceptor can catch ships at that speed without billions in faction equipment or a 30 man "blob" (which I believe is something that CCP doesn't care for) camping a gate and hoping he/she screws up. |
Leandro Salazar
Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:11:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 15/02/2007 20:08:54 Oh as for improving Amarr damage...
Have you thought about alternating T1 crystal damage emphasis?
Like, new Multifrequency L would do 34 therm + 14 EM, new Gamma L would do 12 Therm + 32 EM, new X-Ray L would do 30 Therm + 10 EM, etc pp
And maybe a T2 crystal with Exp damage? --------- There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Kestrel
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:18:00 -
[68]
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.
|
ArmyOfMe
Hybrid Syndicate Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:19:00 -
[69]
I agree that nano ships needs to be nerfed somehow, but make sure you dont nerf blasterships when you nerf mwd's.
|
Alex Under
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:28:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Tuxford
Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE.
So what is EVE all about then Tux? EVE is what WE make it! WE use the same mechanics to come up with new stategies and ways of doing combat, and then along comes the nerf bat. Speed adds another dimension to PvP Combat. That in itself is a tactic and a strategy. And now you're going to nerf that tactic. So what is going to happen here, no one will want to fly interceptors/interdictors/assault ships anymore. You won't see anymore Nano-ships like the Phoon and Domi. And what about those pilots who spent billions of isk getting Snake Implants? Now your going to penalize them? Speed has always been a tactic and strategy of this game, now CCP are talking about nerfing it. Just Friggin great.
So what exactly do you invision combat to be then Tux? To sit there at 10 km from each other and shoot our guns and sees which one dies first? (that sounds so exciting - yawn) And then 6 months from now, you'll be nerfing something else, because players keep having to adapt to CCP nerfing new startegies and tactics used by the players in the EVE Community.
NanoPhoons and NanoDomis aren't invulnerable. They can be killed you know. They add another piece to PvP warfare. And what about Blaster ships who rely on MWDs to get into range to actualy do some damage? Did you ever consider that they'll be impacted too? There goes the BlasterThron and all the other blaster boats who rely on MWDs.
*sigh*
|
|
Ace101
Dark Knights of Deneb Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:39:00 -
[71]
T3h Dev's Blog
ok so these speed changes seem to be the vendetta against the nanon phoon and maybe the vagabond. i personally do not fly a nanophoon myself, but i do fly a crow and a blaster megathron.
Quote:
1. Make it require charges 2. Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity 3. Not allow people to use cap booster when mwd is active
1. omg, please not in an interceptor! as soon as the MWD goes off im dead. and as for docking every 10 minutes to get new charges, no thanx
2. ok, so the faster you go the more cap you use. nano phoons dont have to go that fast but they orbit out of web range. as long as you are faster than your opponent you can always leave the fight when not webbed. and maybe pick targets better and not engage missile ships and fit a tracking disruptor.
ok, so my crow goes 9.3km/s with no speed implants. but then again it does cost over 260million isk. great i go fast, but I AM AN INTERCEPTOR and i have invested the isk and skill time into it. i also happen to have the sig radius of a small building so pilot error can lead to a ship loss. the whole idea is interception... the crow has possibly the worst DPS ever but im ok with that because its a tackler.
3. will not really stop the nanophoon as 4 heavy NOS can run a microwarp (i have tried it with a domi) as you said in the blog.
also in a blaster megathron (no MWD bonus) and fast ROF with neutron IIs and cap eating ammo. yeah we can write that off as you need to be firing cap booster charges.
also why make cap charges for inties if they arnet to be used. i use them, they work and save me from NOS.
to kill the nanophoon you kill everything else that is speed based. Thanx
|
Siri Blue
Gallente Duvolle Laboratories Blue Division
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:02:00 -
[72]
Concerning the Speed of MWD battleships you think FAR too complicated! You don't need to nerf nanos, you don't need to nerf inertias, you don't need to add charges for the MWDs...
All you need is to adjust the speed percentage bonus the Microwarpdrives of the bigger sized ships give.
Let the MWD for Frigate size stay at 500% Bonus, make the Cruiser size MWD 300% and make the Battleship size MWD 200%! And all your problems are solved (the % numbers I used can be adjusted of course) This is the EASY way to fix the problem and the best way too because Interceptors stay frakking fast while Battleships come down to a somewhat reasonable speed of max 2000 m/s or so with really good gear
|
Scarlett Yo'Mason
Pod Killing Machines
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:06:00 -
[73]
What about the drones, sir?
Ye, off-topic, but it shouldn't be. New guy, drones being adressed, more important stuff to deal with, etc etc, yeah, we know it all but it has been 2 years since a major drone change.
Just bumping for some response.
|
Felysta Sandorn
Caldari Murder of Crows E N I G M A
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:12:00 -
[74]
Two big points come to mind here...
1) What about people who use the MWD as it's meant to be used? To get your ship in to range! I fly a Megathron with a heavy tank, blasters, and an MWD. I'm struggling to get it over 1km/s at the moment, especially since I just added a rig to increase Explosive Resistance. Sure I could train Navigation 5, High Speed Maneuvering 5, and maybe reach 1.2km/s, but if you're going to nerf the MWD to counter nanophoons, nanodomis, and whatever else is buzzing around like bricks shouldn't, don't nerf it to every ship, PLEASE!
On the same level, I tried fitting an Apoc with an MWD to get it in range better, with a similar tank as the one on my Mega (dual rep, 1600 tung, resistances then damage mods), and didn't even breach 800m/s, making the mod on this ship completely useless!
Nerfing the MWD will be a massive nerf to anyone that wants to use it properly, please figure out a way to nerf nanoships rather than the MWD itself. Thoughts on this?
2) Yeah, it took a while to get to, but just wanted to say thanks for the Amarr buff too. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that my new character can beat my main one in any class of ship simply because I fly Amarr and he flies Gallente (no flaming please, it's true, I have an EVE-playing housemate who's done reams of tests with me on the test server using both my characters, and the most upsetting was when my alt's t1 Megathron beat my fully t2 Apoc). On the topic of roles and Amarr BS though, the Abaddon still has a massive problem with Cap (in the blog it even says that Amarr should be the Cap race, but the Abaddon still suffers), and on the Apoc, it'd be really nice to see the role change to some form of NOS bonus (Curse/Pilgrim style, to make it a little like the Bhaalgorn perhaps) and please give it a useful bonus! :)
3) My prerogative to add a third point if I so wish, and I just wanted to ask about cap bonuses on Amarr ships... Every ship in the game (t1) gets two bonuses, one for damage, one for range perhaps, or damage and tracking, damage and RoF... Whatever... With Amarr, all ships get one of the general bonuses (damage, tracking, RoF...) and one 'Less Cap Usage for Lasers'... Is it just me or does this nerf all Amarr ships right from the start? If the Amarr race developed lasers, they'd put in to their ships the ability to fit them from the start, not as a bonus... Some Amarr ships have a special bonus for fitting lasers (-25% cap usage along with 2 bonuses), so why not make all Amarr ships like this to balance them with the other races? A number of Amarr ships already do much more DPS by fitting Projectiles in anyway (an Apoc does just slightly less DPS than a pest with projectiles, but comparably more DPS than another Apoc with lasers). Can you make ever Amarr ship have a role bonus of less cap for lasers and give some more useful bonuses per level?
Sorry about the long post, just needed to ask those things... Just hope they get answered! Otherwise, I look forward to the patch as ever, CCP! :D _________________________________________________________
|
Diana Merris
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:17:00 -
[75]
Regarding omni-tanks: Why don't EANMs and Invulns take more CPU than the single resist mods?
Armageddon: I like my Arma the way it is, thanks. Fitting? Ok, a bit more CPU would nice, maybe 20cpu. More grid could make it too easy to fit.
Amarr ships in general have CPU issues.
Speed: Personally I find the very idea of superfast kilometer long battleships silly and don't think that you should even have battleship sized or even cruiser sized MWDs/ABs.
|
Ben Hump
Minmatar The Kru
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:19:00 -
[76]
so u are simply saying we are gonna nerf minmatar into their holes and give amarr a bigger peen, that's best descriped as utterly ghey. U were saying that amarr are the cap race and u are gonna boost that but aren't minmatar supposed to be the speed race, yet ur gonna nerf it. I say give the typhoon a speed bonus and the vaga a anti mwd nerfer.
May contain traces of irony, period and enter do not belong on my keyboard "Yes Mister Tristan"
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:19:00 -
[77]
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.
This makes it much harder to do perma-MWD setups without gimping MWDs for the rest of us.
The recharge mods are already penalized by the MWD cap reduction. They work on total cap afterall.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:36:00 -
[78]
I love the news that speed mods are getting nerfed!
My only suggestion is that, whatever it is you do to knobble MWDs, give interceptors a bonus to help mitigate it. I don't think interceptors traveling fast is a bad thing (that is pretty much the point of them) so they really shouldn't be punished in the same way as everything else. Example: MWD's require Charges to work. Interceptors receive a "15% reduction of MWD Charge consumption per level" bonus.
Also nice to hear Amarr are getting their much deserved tweaking. Can't wait until you can tell us a bit more detail. --------
Originally by: Constantine Arcanum most problems can be solved with chloroform.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:48:00 -
[79]
Tuxy thankyouthankyouthankyou for the Blog.
Some thoughts about Amarr:
-The EM damage problem: My favorite solution for this would be to make resists racially-based. If that can't be done, how about making new resistance mods that give a bonus to 2 of the 4 resists? Right now, people fit two EANM + DCU. With the proposed mods, they'd fit 1x Explo+Therm and one Explo+Kin with a DCU, which means that EM no longer sucks, and all the resists should be about equal (explo being the lowest armor resist).
-The cap warfare "characteristic": How about cutting the laser cap use by 50% and switching all cap reduc ship bonuses for the Apoc's 5% to max cap? This would make Amarr more distinguished as the cap race, while making lasers useable on ships like the Arbi but without making Amarr overpowered. This would also mean that you could play around with the ship bonuses more.
-"General ship loving": Yes. Geddon just needs a bit more CPU. Apoc could do with the Aba's resist bonus and the Aba should get the aforementionned max cap bonus instead of the resist bonus (or else it's going to be overpowered). Cruisers suck at the moment (aside from the Arbi, obviously).
Anyways, IBTL
Originally by: Glenntwo You should be an anti pirate because you enjoy giving a player who is looking for an unfair fight an extremely unfair fight
|
Hllaxiu
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:57:00 -
[80]
Random idea for blaster/AC/etc. pilots trying to close range: MWDs are targetted and lock on a "micro warp point" to the target ship. You spend energy by range, and your ship accelerates unbounded to the ship's position when you hit the MWD and then you cannot activate the MWD for the amount of time you just spent getting into range. Cap usage would be governed by an exponential, and activation has some maximum range on the order of 30km.
This is probably only good for battleship sized MWDs though because it completely breaks interceptors. I doubt that you want different mechanisms for 100mn MWDs and 1MN MWDs... because imho 1mn MWDs are just fine. --- Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail. - Emerson |
|
Tolomea
Gallente 5th Front enterprises New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 21:59:00 -
[81]
The perfect solution should nerf the nano BS fittings only and nothing else.
The speed problem doesn't seem to be with the MWD's, there are many perfectly fine uses for MWD's.
It seems that the problem is in the stab/nano modules. I can't think of a sane fitting that has more than about 3 of these, so I think you just need to find a way to stacking nerf these so that more than 3 is pointless and perhaps so that even 3 is a wate of time on a BS.
The suggestion of having them remove an integer amount of mass is interesting but because a BS has 100x the mass of a frig it totally kills them on BS's which I think is undesirable.
|
MOS DEF
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 22:03:00 -
[82]
Just be careful with MWD balancing. If you slow down vagabonds that is fine. Slow down deimos and it is gone for good. The idea to make it speed dependant is good - it shouldn`t hurt blasterboats that are allready slow though.
|
Godar Marak
Amarr Return Of Red Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 22:34:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ben Hump so u are simply saying we are gonna nerf minmatar into their holes and give amarr a bigger peen, that's best descriped as utterly ghey.
You already have the fastest ships. And the tweak wont nerf minmatar ships it will make sure we wont have anymore nos-nano domis.
Cry me a river Minmatar. -------------------- '\0/\0/\0/\0/\0/' Cant we all just get along?
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari The Keep THE R0CK
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:10:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Felysta Sandorn Two big points come to mind here...
1) What about people who use the MWD as it's meant to be used? To get your ship in to range! I fly a Megathron with a heavy tank, blasters, and an MWD. I'm struggling to get it over 1km/s at the moment, especially since I just added a rig to increase Explosive Resistance. Sure I could train Navigation 5, High Speed Maneuvering 5, and maybe reach 1.2km/s, but if you're going to nerf the MWD to counter nanophoons, nanodomis, and whatever else is buzzing around like bricks shouldn't, don't nerf it to every ship, PLEASE!
On the same level, I tried fitting an Apoc with an MWD to get it in range better, with a similar tank as the one on my Mega (dual rep, 1600 tung, resistances then damage mods), and didn't even breach 800m/s, making the mod on this ship completely useless!
Nerfing the MWD will be a massive nerf to anyone that wants to use it properly, please figure out a way to nerf nanoships rather than the MWD itself. Thoughts on this?
2) Yeah, it took a while to get to, but just wanted to say thanks for the Amarr buff too. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that my new character can beat my main one in any class of ship simply because I fly Amarr and he flies Gallente (no flaming please, it's true, I have an EVE-playing housemate who's done reams of tests with me on the test server using both my characters, and the most upsetting was when my alt's t1 Megathron beat my fully t2 Apoc). On the topic of roles and Amarr BS though, the Abaddon still has a massive problem with Cap (in the blog it even says that Amarr should be the Cap race, but the Abaddon still suffers), and on the Apoc, it'd be really nice to see the role change to some form of NOS bonus (Curse/Pilgrim style, to make it a little like the Bhaalgorn perhaps) and please give it a useful bonus! :)
3) My prerogative to add a third point if I so wish, and I just wanted to ask about cap bonuses on Amarr ships... Every ship in the game (t1) gets two bonuses, one for damage, one for range perhaps, or damage and tracking, damage and RoF... Whatever... With Amarr, all ships get one of the general bonuses (damage, tracking, RoF...) and one 'Less Cap Usage for Lasers'... Is it just me or does this nerf all Amarr ships right from the start? If the Amarr race developed lasers, they'd put in to their ships the ability to fit them from the start, not as a bonus... Some Amarr ships have a special bonus for fitting lasers (-25% cap usage along with 2 bonuses), so why not make all Amarr ships like this to balance them with the other races? A number of Amarr ships already do much more DPS by fitting Projectiles in anyway (an Apoc does just slightly less DPS than a pest with projectiles, but comparably more DPS than another Apoc with lasers). Can you make ever Amarr ship have a role bonus of less cap for lasers and give some more useful bonuses per level?
Sorry about the long post, just needed to ask those things... Just hope they get answered! Otherwise, I look forward to the patch as ever, CCP! :D
In regards to number 3, I would be fine with most ammar ships had a 10% bonus to cap laser usage IF they had 25% more raw dps than there hybrid counterparts. Presently, I have not run the numbers myself, but I have heard it said that at ship level 5, lasers actually use less or very very close to the cap of hybrids. Tachions on the other hand, should be true ultra heavy weapons. that means a big damage mod boost, and don't touch there cap use. They use tremendous amounts of PG, meaning you have huge issues running a strong armor tank, and forget about damage mods, becuase you simply run out of low slots with all the PDS's you have to put on. other than that, carry on. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected])
|
mallina
Caldari Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:16:00 -
[85]
Edited by: mallina on 15/02/2007 23:13:24
Originally by: Felysta Sandorn
3) My prerogative to add a third point if I so wish, and I just wanted to ask about cap bonuses on Amarr ships... Every ship in the game (t1) gets two bonuses, one for damage, one for range perhaps, or damage and tracking, damage and RoF... Whatever... With Amarr, all ships get one of the general bonuses (damage, tracking, RoF...) and one 'Less Cap Usage for Lasers'... Is it just me or does this nerf all Amarr ships right from the start? If the Amarr race developed lasers, they'd put in to their ships the ability to fit them from the start, not as a bonus... Some Amarr ships have a special bonus for fitting lasers (-25% cap usage along with 2 bonuses), so why not make all Amarr ships like this to balance them with the other races? A number of Amarr ships already do much more DPS by fitting Projectiles in anyway (an Apoc does just slightly less DPS than a pest with projectiles, but comparably more DPS than another Apoc with lasers). Can you make ever Amarr ship have a role bonus of less cap for lasers and give some more useful bonuses per level?
hi fel
i agree mostly, tho at level 5 the cap use bonus really kicks in and your cap issues tend to go away, its just before that when you only have level 2-3 that it really sucks it shouldnt need level 5 in the ship skill to compete
reducing the cap need on all lasers by 50% and removing the bonus entirely would work wonders (and fix the abaddon) but it would need to be replaced with something not too overpowering - maybe a cap amount bonus like the Apoc has? seeing as most people use injectors it wouldnt really change much methinks
...cept make it viable for other races to fit lasers. hmmm.
|
Mysterlee
Gallente 5punkorp Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:20:00 -
[86]
Tbh I dont think mwds need nerfed at all, doing so would be a hard hit to blasterships, interceptors and other ships that rely on an mwd. Its not worth breaking a whole line up of ships to fix a few overpowered ones. Using charges to power an mwd is an especially bad idea, blasterships struggle to carry enough cap boosters as it is without needing to carry more stuff.
What really needs to be done is agility added to missiles which affects how fast they turn in space, they wont be able to turn fast enough to hit targets if you're orbitting at extreme speeds but are fine at average speeds.
Utility hardpoints need to be added to ships to prevent too many nos being fitted and maybe a 25% decrease in drain amount.
Finally change nanos, istabs and overdrives to be percentage based and you have your nano ship nerf without affecting ships that have been using these things as they were intended too badly.
On the subject of EANMs, this is another thing I dont think you need to nerf, alot of ships dont have the cpu to fit active hardeners so EANMs are the only way to go. I think the best solution would be to knock a flat 10% off EM resistance on armour making it 50%, do the same to shields on their explosive resist to help minmatar out a bit.
|
Hon Kovell
Gallente Intaki Peace
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:25:00 -
[87]
Speed: I think that reducing agility of the nano BS would be enough to solve the problem of their effectiveness and balance them better. They could still go at 7km/s but would have to start on the next grid to build up speed and go in a straight line to reach it, though.
There's several ways to do that but I favour the over-complicated way, that adds work for you, of adding an agility penalty to the mwd. It could vary depending on MWD size or even ship mass/mwd mass - the latter method would mean that lowering ship mass would increase MWD speed at the cost of lower agility with MWD on.
Converting speed mods to a percent bonus instead of fixed has a certain elegance to it, but removes some variety. If overdrives gave a fixed boost and nanofibres a percent boost it would keep some of that variety in fitting choices. It would also mean that the biggest speed boost to a BS was from the mod that lowered agility, which goes well with the mwd penalty above. Frigates would gain the biggest boost from the mod that increased agility further.
Amarr: It would be great to be able to use Medium Beam Lasers on a frigate.
I don't think the Geddon needs to be able to fit Tachyons without big sacrifices. It seems reasonable to me as is. The Apoc is a great ship with good bonuses - except in the current world of Nos and Cap Boosters. Nos effectively removes the capacitor advantage in close combat. The current fad for short fights then running lends itself to packing all your cap mods into the one cap booster. That reduces the capacitor size advantage again. I don't see any need to change the bonus, though. Fads will change, nos will be nerfed and capacitor will be popular again. Some more grid would be nice, though, to help fit tachyons. The Apoc is a ship that should be able to fit them with little effort.
The Maller and Omen need work. A bit more tank might help - the Maller would be a more effective tank and the Omen could go all gank and still survive a mosquito bite.
Have you considered raising EANM cpu? That would make it a less obvious choice.
I love the cap bonus for lasers, by the way. Adds variety and fits the Amarr cap specialty. |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:26:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Goumindong on 15/02/2007 23:24:11
Originally by: mallina
...cept make it viable for other races to fit lasers. hmmm.
Since amarr are using autocannons and blasters to better effect than lasers on ships that do not get damage bonuses[punisher, maller, prophecy, apoc, abaddon*] i dont see a reason to be scared of other races suddenly picking up lasers for general use.
I also dont think its a huge deal if they do due to the current balance between them. As well, since lasers are supposedly "so clearly superior" it would make sense in the RP fashion for other races to make breakthroughs that allow laser use on their ships.
*The abaddon when using blasters or autocannons works just like an Apoc does, except with a better secondary bonus more fitting space, and more hit points. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Wizzkidy
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:27:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Mysterlee Tbh I dont think mwds need nerfed at all, doing so would be a hard hit to blasterships, interceptors and other ships that rely on an mwd. Its not worth breaking a whole line up of ships to fix a few overpowered ones. Using charges to power an mwd is an especially bad idea, blasterships struggle to carry enough cap boosters as it is without needing to carry more stuff.
What really needs to be done is agility added to missiles which affects how fast they turn in space, they wont be able to turn fast enough to hit targets if you're orbitting at extreme speeds but are fine at average speeds.
Utility hardpoints need to be added to ships to prevent too many nos being fitted and maybe a 25% decrease in drain amount.
Finally change nanos, istabs and overdrives to be percentage based and you have your nano ship nerf without affecting ships that have been using these things as they were intended too badly.
On the subject of EANMs, this is another thing I dont think you need to nerf, alot of ships dont have the cpu to fit active hardeners so EANMs are the only way to go. I think the best solution would be to knock a flat 10% off EM resistance on armour making it 50%, do the same to shields on their explosive resist to help minmatar out a bit.
haha, someones bitter that there mega wont be able to burn up to what it likes without having something that might mean you have to prepare and think slightly more.
Also the tanking side once again you want to be able to fit a decent tank and gank at the same time as usual, your moan smells of a mega pilot that goes around and pwn'ing ammar all the time because of the gimp ammar have
Cry me a river.
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:27:00 -
[90]
How to boost Amarr:
Lasers randomly apply a status effect halving resistance. It takes passive mods longer to "recover" then active. This only applies to bonus resists, not base resists which do not get halved (so Amarr don't become the gank newbie mobile).
Problem solved. Amarr now rock in gang PvP. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
|
Sean Dillon
Caldari LEGI0N
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:50:00 -
[91]
I dont like tuxford, I can't belive CCP let him do this crap to MWD and armor tank.
Things that aren't broke, like armor tanking dont need fixing.
|
FawKa
Gallente Old Farts
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 23:54:00 -
[92]
Edited by: FawKa on 15/02/2007 23:52:27 Tux bud, you got everything wrong.. do you play this game? Or just orbiting BoBs Titan?
Speed isnt the issue, MWD isnt either, nano's aint a problem either, cap booster - nope.. Nosferatu ! There we go! How would any of these ships (nanophoon, nanodomi, nanocuse) have survived if the nosferatu got, lets say, tracking to nos? They would run out of boosters asap'o
And the little plan of yours: - make it requite charges Why dont you just say nerf shortrange combat?
- Not allow people to use cap booster when mwd is active So now I have to turn of my MWD when I need cap because everyone is Nossing me and I try to get my 3k ranged blasters into range?
These MWD changes are maybe a nerf to nano ships but they are a hammer in the head to shortrange combat - gallente and blasters
-
And the Amarr whine, so basicly when ppl whine enough everything gets sorted? My drones are STILL not working btw, havent been working since you guys released the drone skill - but lets improve turrets a bit more shall we?
Amarr got quite some dmg when hitting non resisted walls. Same with minmatar - we all know this. However, Amarr is STILL the tanking race while minmatar go alphastrike and gallente go dmg. Gallente take dmg instead of tank - therfor they got KIN and THR dmg - right? So all of a sudden the EANM pop up and amarr cant gank anyone like before. I mean, wtf.. They got the tank, I would really like to give over some dmg for the lowslots they got. and again, I know a lot of old amarr players, and they wouldnt change race for 1000Ç. So does amarr just requite more skills than before EANM - yep - and thats all.
Flame away, this just got me hot, cuz there is so many other issues about this game (just like drones) and you dev dudes keeps looking at the same thing. Some guys dont even know how amarr were back in the old days, they just want more dmg!
/FawKa tears hair out
Edit: 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.. If you fit guns like that you wont fit anything other, you will fit fitting gear and dmg mods to do the job you are ment to - alpha strike.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:10:00 -
[93]
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.
|
voogru
Gallente Massive Damage
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:13:00 -
[94]
Rather than nerfing MWD's it would be better to make a more viable counter for them.
|
FawKa
Gallente Old Farts
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:16:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Aramendel
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.
Mmm, guess I have to recheck with some guys. If its true something in that blog actually did make sense.
I still see the cap of guns more of an issue with amarr tho btw, after HP increse and taking cap from minmatar guns.
|
Revan Ano
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:19:00 -
[96]
You mention that the Ammar are suppose to be the cap race. Seems to me that race should play a larger part by having a Natural Affinity. As it stands the bonus is only with the ships in the design. I find it odd that a pilot can cross train and get the same bonuses. I agree that you have a bonus in the ship design but it takes that race to take the ship to it's full potential. This would make race a larger factor which is also a push you want in Factional Warfare.
An example is that there is an implied natual affinity with the Jovians in Jump Drives. Evidenced in that other races can not seem to pilot to Jovian Space.
|
BlackHorizon
Caldari Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:39:00 -
[97]
Edited by: BlackHorizon on 16/02/2007 00:43:17 Tux, please reconsider your "speed" nerfs. Tux, were you happy with the situation before Relevations, before the introduction of rigs and boosted inertial stabilizers? I was.
I think nanofibers should not be touched and think they were fine pre-Relevations. However, I do think inertial stabilizers and some rigs should be penalized. IMHO, the pre-revelations nanophoon was not overpowered, but a viable tactic. I have nothing to say but to implore you to keep nanofibers and MWDs the same, and eliminate/nerf the overpowered inertial stabilizers and rigs.
There is no need for radical changes to microwarpdrives that will have far reaching consequences to many ships of all races when the real problem is simply the inertial stabilizers and some rigs. And I really believe you side-stepped the issue of snakes and skirmish warfare boosts -- these are the truely overpowered factor that make speed battleships go 7-9 km/s.
|
Janu Hull
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:52:00 -
[98]
I'm not crazy about speed nerfs, at least not through the low slot mods. One version of a Rokh I had some success with was a speed sniper. With proper ammunition and mid slot enhancements, I could push my Rokh to about 500m/s, which is more than enough to outpace the bulk of opponents and get me to the point where I could better exploit the longer range of my hybrid turrets. Commitment to a fight should not mean entrapment. What this is doing is creating a situation where there is only one possible solution to any tactical encounter, and it is ultimately limiting to the potential variations that ships can achieve.
Why must I become a shield tank simply because I fly a Caldari ship? Why do you give me the ability to hit targets at 150km and up if you never intend to let me achieve the necessary field position to use it. Why is it that when I find myself being overwhelmed, the possibility of escape must be impossible? As it stands now, Caldari players using hybrid turrets are already ridiculously limited compared to the relatively mindless missile spammers, both in consistency of damage, accuracy, rate of fire, and capacitor power usage. I have twice the potential range advantage of missile spammers, I should have the ability to make use of it. Otherwise, you are simply wasting code maintaining them.
|
mallina
Caldari Infinitus Odium Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:56:00 -
[99]
Originally by: BlackHorizon pre-revelations nanophoon was not overpowered, but a viable tactic
so because it wasnt the FOTM pre-rev means it wasnt overpowered?
it WAS overpowered pre-rev, but it required spending a ton of isk to make it overpowered. now, you get that same effectiveness with t1 gear, and spending the same isk as before nets you something short of invincible.
just because people havent picked up on it yet, dosent mean its crap. imo some Logistic ships are seriously overpowered (Guardian providing infinate cap, anyone?), but who flies those?
|
Felysta Sandorn
Caldari Murder of Crows E N I G M A
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 01:27:00 -
[100]
Okay, a couple of people said 'When you have BS 5...' Who in EVE under the age of 2 years (at the earliest) has BS 5 that hasn't just trained up for carrier and sold their account...
When crunching the numbers and evaluating every BS capabilities with all relevant skills at level 5, Amarr BS still come out last (for anyone that's interested, Raven > Mega > Pest > Apoc according to someone's post just after revs came out on the test server, can't find that post though), but with everyone saying 'without BS 5 Amarr sucks', it just proves they're rubbish...
Sorry, best end my rant there else I could go on for pages!
And hey mallina! o/
Oh, and as for the speed discussion, while chatting on Vent, we had an idea to fix it... Make webbers sig based as well over 10km, so every ship in 10km gets webbed as usual, but then ships with larger sig radius can get webbed outside 10km, eg: Cruiser with 1600 plate and MWD can get webbed at 12km BattleCruiser with loads of shield extenders and plates can get webbed at 17km BattleShip with intertiastabs and MWD can get webbed at 24km
Alternatively, make webbers stop people dead in their tracks instead of slowing them down... With a nanophoon, if you get a web on, sure it'll drop it down to 400m/s, but it'll take so long to get there that it'll get out of web range before the web takes effect! Make it so it stops people dead and it'll be much harder for nanoBS to get in to position (also solves the whole running for the gate thing)... _________________________________________________________
|
|
Coasterbrian
Loss of Sanity
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 02:04:00 -
[101]
Some thoughts:
Don't change MWDs. There's nothing wrong with them, and a change to MWDs would screw over blasterboats. There has been nothing wrong with MWDs since dual MWD was nerfed, and honestly I don't see that changing.
The primary problem is the fact that inertial stabs in particular have no real drawbacks, beyond the loss of a tank. Nanos don't really have a penalty either, unless it's somebody that likes their damage controls. Give speed mods some significant penalty, something with the same kind of detriment that overdrives get (reducing cargo size which reduces the number of cap charges you can hold).
One idea would be to have inertial stabs or nanos or injection vents decrease the cycle time of a MWD, making it use more cap to sustain. This doesn't gimp ships that normally need a MWD to function in their role (blasterboats, tacklers, etc) but it does generate a disadvantage for anyone that wants to pimp out their speed.
As far as fixing Amarr goes, one big solution would be what has already been stated, reducing the powergrid needed to fit a rack of guns. To get people to ease off the omni tanks, boost the resist-specific energized membranes and nerf EANMs a LITTLE bit. Actually, better yet, just remove active hardeners as you suggested and make passive resist specific hardeners have the same stats as their equivalent in active hardeners. ----------
Loss of Sanity.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 02:13:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Janu Hull Why is it that when I find myself being overwhelmed, the possibility of escape must be impossible?
This, right here, I think is the major problem with CCP's philosophy. The fact is, between the HP/cap boost and the nerf to stabs, combat is still over a LONG time before anyone's ships actually explode, barring being able to call in some type of support.
The real problem with combat, isn't one of making people commit, it's that it's impossible to do any lasting damage to ships. Shields/Armor are both equally repairable, if someone goes into structure you've already killed them and there's no way to damage a ship progressively. This is highly noticeable at the high end of ships (capitals) and trickles back all the way to about cruisers.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 02:34:00 -
[103]
Originally by: BlackHorizon Edited by: BlackHorizon on 16/02/2007 01:28:41 Tux, please reconsider your "speed" nerfs. Tux, were you happy with the situation before Revelations, before the introduction of rigs and boosted inertial stabilizers? I was.
I think nanofibers should not be touched and think they were fine pre-Revelations. However, I do think inertial stabilizers and some rigs should be penalized. IMHO, the pre-revelations nanophoon was not overpowered, but a viable tactic. I have nothing to say but to implore you to keep nanofibers and MWDs the same, and eliminate/nerf the overpowered inertial stabilizers and rigs.
There is no need for radical changes to microwarpdrives that will have far reaching consequences to many ships of all races when the real problem is simply the inertial stabilizers and some rigs. And I really believe you side-stepped the issue of snakes and skirmish warfare boosts -- these are the truely overpowered factor that make speed battleships go 7-9 km/s.
I almost completely agree with the above.
My fear is that whatever fix you guys decide on will affect most the ships that need it the least, and make things like snake implants and gang boosts even more important than they are now.
My hope is that you're careful to tone down the nano-setups at the extremes of speed and size and isk while leaving smaller ships flown by pilots without the isk for high grade implants relatively closer to where they are now.
Also, as other people have mentioned, the speed problem is intimately connected to the NOS problem. I hope the overhaul to that is in the works too.
* * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
CoLe Blackblood
Murder-Death-Kill Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 03:17:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 15/02/2007 17:53:46
You have to be careful here to still keep Eve fun to play... it doesnt matter if you build the ultimate space strategy game if all players are doing is watching energy bars go down on eachother (woa, that sounds soo kinky :p). Personally im amongst the ones who think fast reflexes is part of the fun of combat...just like any good fighting game, the player has to feel that he is influencing the battle by his actions in combat.
That's why other games that just require you to turn on your combat functions and basically just stand there stink to holy hell. That's what sets Eve apart from them. I would hope it is kept that way.
~CoLe Blackblood |
HankMurphy
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 03:21:00 -
[105]
in response to the 'need for speed'
well we all knew nanoships were gonna get some kind of nerf considering the 'stickied' topic in S&M. However, tbh, I thought you would be looking more towards just fixing the new rigs and istabs you borked as opposed to mwd's themselves.
It has to be obvious that the MWD, a module that has worked so well for years now, may have less to do with the issue?(doesn't it?)
.....while the mods you so recently implimented and adjusted (istabs and rigs) may hold more of the blame? This seems only logical.
So we gonna totally re-do MWDs then? Interesting. Now, are we gonna ruin blaster boats with this change? I am guessing not, as some gal ships have mwd bonus's. So... nerf minmatar? (i know thats not very fair to say at this point, but as an end result... i wouldn't be suprised)
What I mean to say is, I can see you implimenting this to not affect the interceptor, but to kill the nanophoon nanodomi nanocurse nanoeverything. But where would that then leave a ship like the vagabond? Up the creek w/o a paddle?
Now if, (and this is a BIG if)... but if minnie aren't to have any real speed advantage in combat (5-15m/s is not an advantage) but blaster boats will likely retain their efficient mwd'ing ability (just a hunch i have), than can we (minmatar) get a new racial theme?
I'm sure real changes on tranquility are a looooong ways out, and i will admit i'm kinda jumping the gun with a couple of my assumptions. However now is the best time to voice concerns than AFTER the change, due to the turn-around time on CCP readjusting over-nerfefd items.
So, in summary my 2 cents i would be real happy if you all could think on is.....
-How long have ppl used MWDs with no problems/ imbalance? -How long has the nanofad been going on? -What did you (CCP) do RIGHT before the nano craze to allow for it?
-Speed does not equal agility. It certainly takes both for a real combat advantage.
AND
-Will we see ANY viable counters to missiles other than speed (especially w/ a pending nerf)? Drones can be popped, there is anti-turret EW... I think this is one thing CCP has had on the table a LONG time and never addressed. (defenders are a joke and we ALL know it, not to mention even if they were viable, it requires a high slot and not a midslot like turret destabilizers)
Answering the above questions should point you in a better direction than drastically changing MWDs overall. Perhaps after you fix your newer changed/implimented mods you will find MWDs work just fine as is!
.....as so many of our parents and grandparents told us "if it aint broke, dont fix it!"
They told us this because, despite best intentions, you will normally find after you 'fix' soemthing that was never really broke, your 'whatever' (MWD) never works quite right again.
------------------------
In response to the rest
-Its about time Amarr got a boost.
-More info on the NOS topic plz. CCP see's a problem with overly fast ships. Do they see a problem with full racks of NOS on non-specialized ships? Should NOS be viable counter for a BS vs a frig?
-ships that need loving >> again, t1 amarr of course. and some cruisers? good stuff!
you guys do rock these things need looked at and its great to see a blog on it all finally. Just please dont blow us minnies out of the water. (dont swing that bat too hard). Of course the nanofad has gotten a little silly, but dont forget how many of us (matar especially) that enjoy speed setups on more than Interceptors and blasterboats.
Many are setups that are balanced, can be caught in combat, have been used for a long long time, and are 'supposed' to be a staple of our race.
|
Juno II
Gallente S-44 Tre Kroner
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 03:21:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Juno II on 16/02/2007 03:20:21 Ok after reading alot of posts. i picked and modified 2 things i thougt would be better.
The first one as NOS, Tracking?! Great idea. wont put The noss out of use for anyone except the nanoships!
Large NOS= low tracking Snall 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 its dependent on the Signature of the ship. Bigger signature... More effective webbifier (easier for the WEB to get a grip of the ship)
So basicly a MWDing Nanophoon would get stuck and killed if meeting wrong ship. Maybe have a small chanse by turning the MWD of and FLEE :D (if not killed before)
The smaller ships would still be effective with MWD.
And my changes atleast all details ive looked thue doesn't Nerf any other ships... maybe the Web thingy. but im more support of my NOS idea.
(i fly nanophoon, so im bit sad still relieved, becouse it IS to good :/)
edit: Excuse my spelling!
EVE-online.se - Swedish EVE community |
Kuriatai
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 03:30:00 -
[107]
You might try adding a new energy weapon for Amarr. My idea is a forcebeam weapon in long range and short range versions. Primary damage Kinetic, secondary damage EM. This would give Amarr ships a way to vary their damage type.
I just thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it.
Commander USS Turtle U-1
Unknown, unauthorized, and first of that class |
pylons38
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 03:32:00 -
[108]
Wow, what are you thinking? Yeah, get rid of the Nanophoons but don't punish the intys and dictors.
I hope you put some thought into this because it's just going to screw up the tacklers.
|
CoLe Blackblood
Murder-Death-Kill Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 04:13:00 -
[109]
Or we could nerf rigs, or remove them until they are balanced properly. Before Kali there weren't any problems whatsoever with Nanoships. Kali comes out...let the troubles begin. Instead of trying to patch a problem(nanos) with a new problem(mwd)why not roll back to when nobody complained about nanoships?
~CoLe Blackblood |
xeom
Veto.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 04:19:00 -
[110]
well say goodbye to normal ships trying to keep range?
While i am agianst nanos and such i think a MWD penatly is too much.You still have ships like the stabber that depend on speed to be any good.
Also what about something like a tempest that needs to use its speed to stay out of blaster range? ---
"Those nuclear missiles are for domestic heating." - Scagga
|
|
Andargor theWise
Collateral Damage Unlimited
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 04:21:00 -
[111]
Just throwing out an off-the-wall idea for the MWD, since we are talking something different:
I've read in Oveur's blog that you are considering converting certain active modules to passive ones in order to save some server processing or comms or whatever.
One thing that always bugs me is that we are always using either max speed or full stop on ships. What if we actually had to manage speed with an MWD and use the pretty slider at the bottom of the control puck?
What if the MWD was a passive module? When you fit it, you spend a certain amount of cap/second depending on your speed and base signature radius (pre-bloom, but with skills and other signature-affecting modules/rigs).
I won't give numbers, but cap use/speed could be non-linear, just like cap usage and shield recharge. It would have a "sweet spot" where speed vs cap use is maximized, allowing for player skill in maneuvering.
It opens interesting avenues, with special bonuses for interceptors, blaster ships, certain skills, and potentially rigs.
- Got grief?
Revelations MySQL Database |
Karasuma Akane
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 04:50:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Revan Ano Seems to me that race should play a larger part by having a Natural Affinity. As it stands the bonus is only with the ships in the design. I find it odd that a pilot can cross train and get the same bonuses. I agree that you have a bonus in the ship design but it takes that race to take the ship to it's full potential. This would make race a larger factor which is also a push you want in Factional Warfare.
Aside from the MWD/Amarr issues, I believe this should be implemented more thoroughly in the game. Right now it doesn't matter which race you are, since they're essentially interchangeable for the purposes of fitting and flying your ships. Perhaps it should be that while you're free to train and use another race's ships, you don't receive the ship's full bonuses? It should be somewhat strange to see a Caldari using a Gallente ship, or an Amarrian using a Minmatar bucket... overall, shouldn't there be more 'loyalty' to your race aside from roleplaying? Especially with Factional Warfare coming up, I'd think a free Minmatar flying a Gallentean ship through central Amarr space would be looked at suspiciously by the Imperial authorities...
Anyway, I best like the idea of having MWDs severely decrease agility - basically useful for straightline boosts to get into range of (or running away from) the target, not for spinning circles around it (which is what afterburners are for).
|
James Draekn
X.E.N.O.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 05:20:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Tuxford
The biggest factor in the velocity is the microwarpdrive. Looking at microwarpdrive stats it shouldn't come as a big surprise that these modules aren't supposed to be sustainable, they have high cap need and give penalties to capacitor. However they can be, so when in doubt nerf the microwarpdrive! Well not really but we have discussed number of modification of it.
If you plan on changing MWD sustainablity you better dramatically boost the base speed of all Gallente Blaster Boats to let them get into blaster range. As it is right now Blaster boats already have to compete with a 25% reduction to cap for fitting MWD, operating that MWD, being in NOS range at all times and having to run a tank. Making the MWD require more cap or reducing its effectiveness will require CCP to rebalance all blaster boats to actually let them even get close to a target.
|
Greater Mind
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 05:38:00 -
[114]
Let's take a look at three months ago. What sort of nano-heavies were people flying? The nanophoon is the only ship that comes to mind (aside from the bumpageddon, of course, but let's be serious). What major change was introduced that suddenly allowed virtually all battleships to move several km/s?
INERTIAL STABS
The nanophoon existed pre-Kali, but was it then the unstoppable solopwnmobile that it is today? Absolutely not - in order to get it moving at extreme speeds (which represent the lower end of speeds seen on today's nanobattleships) you needed a fair load of skills and the best equipment around (including Snakes). Massive, massive investments to do it properly. Look at the way things are now - it's gotten out of hand. Every ship can become a formidable nanobattleship with mediocre skills and Tech 1. Sure, rigs play a part to some extent, but are they the key element responsible for making the nanobattleship what it is today? I think not! What can we do to fix this?
NERF INERTIAL STABS
There's absolutely no need to completely reinvent the MWD system - after the dual MWD nerf, before Kali, they were fine. The one exception was the nanophoon, but frankly I'd be willing to tolerate the occasional nanophoon if it meant the microwarpdrive was able to remain intact for smaller ships. The major change which caused all of this was the inertial stab - undoing that would undo most of the issues without exceptionally radical action. If you want to be safe, increase the stacking penalty on nanos as well. But just think about what the aforementioned suggestions would do to small ships. Interceptors? Well, if you guys are serious, I had better sell mine before you give them the effectiveness of Stealth Bombers!
Thanks for reading. |
Barbicane
Minmatar The Gun Club Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 07:39:00 -
[115]
If you change nanofibers so they only give agility, then please also remove the cargo penalty on overdrives and the speed penalty on cargo expanders.
Cheers |
Christopher Scott
Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 07:39:00 -
[116]
Tux, why don't you just do what the community suggested 2 years ago?
Double, or triple the speed boost of MWD.
Add a -99.9% reduction in agility.
Give Afterburners a boost, so they are about half as effective as current MWD. Give interceptors a 100% class bonus to afterburners, so they work like the current MWD.
Oh look, everything gets boosted in a really cool way, and everybody is happy! The End.
Originally by: DB Preacher I may be a muppet on these forums and wind peeps up massively but what is going on here is waaaaay over the edge of reasonable morality.
|
Migkado
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 07:50:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Migkado on 16/02/2007 08:06:32 Edited by: Migkado on 16/02/2007 07:49:03 After reading Tux's Blog, I found myself troubled by a few things:
I agree that at the higher end of possible speeds, several Nano-setups have become overall too fast. My main concern is exactly how far any incoming changes to ship's speeds would go.
There is a limit to how slow something can go and still have the ability to "speed tank" and effectively control the range of the engagement. Given that the possibilities of 3 nerfs to speed-setup ships were mentioned, I fear the implementation of several complementary nerfs would put any ships attempting to use their speed as a battlefield tactic at too great a disadvantage. That lead me to think:
What exactly is the point of the Minmatar speed advantage?
Honestly, the whole concept of a race's ships as a whole having speed as a racial theme is flawed in Eve. Webifier modules greatly reduce the speed of any ship <10km, in a game whose mechanics require ships to fight under 20-24km (inside of scramble range) or at distant, sniping ranges (outside of scramble range and generally safe from incoming tacklers attempting to get into range).
With the minor speed advantage most Minmatar ships have over their equivalents from other races, most engagements in ships larger than frigates have the Minmatar ship too close to the opposing ship's effective range, or either too far away from the 20k web scramble range. There is no real mid-range combat option in Eve, fights generally happen inside scrambling range, or far out from it.
So, with a relatively small speed advantage Minmatar ships have over their equivalent race's shipclasses, the speed is mostly inconsequential and does not compensate for the lesser tanking ability and lesser DPS Minmatar have. When the speed advantage is great enough to actually let the Minmatar's supposed racial advantage actually work for once, it becomes too powerful and requires a nerf. Speed as the overall Minmatar ship feature simply does not work, aside from the Vagabond, Typhoon and Stabber (all ships which typically can go far faster than most other ships of similar size and are capable of crawling out of 10km once hit by a single webifier).
I hope the speed nerf does not make speed-tanking unfeasible for ships such as the Typhoon and Vagabond (which was pretty much the Minmatar's main selling point before Kali). Tux's blog makes it sounds as if he would prefer all ships that are in combat to be <10km apart and simply blasting away at each other until one pops.
Quote: When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off.
This worries me. Do the acceptable tactics of Eve = slowness or inability to dictate range in and out of scramble range? I hope this was directed more at the great agility of nanoships (brought about by Kali's change to Inertial Stabs) rather than speed in general. There should be the option to choose to be mobile enough for hit-and-run style combat, otherwise it's just a matter of whom brings the biggest blob to the fight.
The proposals for MWD in the blog, aside from the "Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity" one, are simply terrible. Even the velocity/cap consumption option would seem to have an inadvertent nerf effect on interceptors, ships which are meant to be fast.
The general consensus is that the pre-kali speed/agility levels were acceptable. Not much complaining happened about speed-setups, except for the Vagabond, a ship whose claim to fame was its great survivability and being the only HAC which was truly unique and fufilled a different role than BS's. A massive speed nerf is not needed, but only to return things back closer to pre-Kali levels. Honestly, I fear a knee-jerk nerf brought about by a massive overreaction from the incredible speeds attained by Snake-implanted, faction equipped BSs.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:11:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Goumindong on 16/02/2007 08:12:10 The minmatar ships that have "reduced tanking ability" are significantly faster than their peers. Thorax/Rupture? both have 5 low slots and no tanking bonus. The Stabber is 23% faster than the next fastest non-minmatar cruiser and gets a 5% bonus to velocity/level.
The Tempest has 5 mids and 6 lows, enough for either a shiled tank with a propulsion mod or a decent armor tank and tackling gear. The Maelstrom has probably the strongest absolute battleship tank in the game, rivaled only by the Rokh. The Thypoon has 7 low slots, the same as the dominix, Megathron, Apoc, and Abaddon. Only one of those has a tanking bonus and only one battleship has more than 7 low slots. It does not have a strong tank.
The Cyclone has 5 mids and a shield tank bonus, and the Hurricane can fit a dual mar injected tank with an MWD and a full rack of guns[and missiles or nos]
The Rifter only tanks worse than the punisher, and has tons of speed to make up for it.[and 3 mids]
Tech 2 is similarly setup, with only the Muninn maybe having a tanking disadvantage[made up in other areas]
edit; that is to say, there is no supposed minmatar tanking disadvantage. And yes, nanobattleships need to be taken down a level, they obviate smaller speed based ships. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:24:00 -
[119]
1. Enforce the "max speed boost" value of ABs/MWDs
You would only have mass reduction benefits UNTIL you hit the base mass (1, 10 and 100 mil kg), and no more. Alternatively, increase the max speed boost by 10-20% and also increase the mass addition of ABs/MWDs by 30-60% while keeping the same thrust, so that it would make sense to equip mass reduction even on small ships.
This is probably THE most vital piece of change you can do. The immediate effect would be that you have a very clear control of max possible speed obtainable by any class of ships, and would make the base speed AND mass of the ship VERY important.
2. Remove the cap penality from MWD but increase the base consumption by at least 50%, if not even 100%
This would make most MWD-equipped ships feasable in terms of tank and gank when NOT using the MWD, and cause them to use the MWD only when needed (on approach or on disengage only, NOT for orbit). No single other change to MWD is needed... heck, MWDs need a boost for single-burst type of use to be honest.
3. Change bonuses on istab/nano/overdrives.
Have istabs increase agility by a percentage, drop the sig penalities but maybe add a different penality (maxcap for instance) Have nanos reduce mass by a percentage, keep hull HP penality Have overdrives increase top speed by a percentage, keep cargo penality
That's right, no more fixed amount tweaks, and completely separated bonuses. This immediately makes them all much more useful on smaller ships, and less useful on big ships. _____
Code changes, minimal, for all cases. End efect, almost perfectly in line with desired one. _ MySkills | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Templer Relleg
Dark Knights of Deneb Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:39:00 -
[120]
Honestly i would hate to see my Crow nerfed by some speed-nerfs. The speed is what makes eve fun for me.
When the Nos v2.0 comes out, it could change. If the range is increased, people will be able to nos me = no more cap = im dead. everything makes a difference. Take steps 1 by one please.
|
|
Helmut 314
Amarr J.H.E.N.R Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:40:00 -
[121]
I like the suggestion of adding charges to MWD, making it more of a burst use module. Heres my suggestion :
1mn mwd uses cap charge 50, fits 20 charges. 10 mn mwd uses cap charge 200, fits 10 charges 100 mn mwd uses cap charge 400, fits 5 charges.
That would give a reasonable relationship between MWD use, ship mass and cargo space. In return the cap penalty can be removed, boosting the tankability of say blasterships quite a bit. Also prevents using NOS to perma-run MWD:s
________________________________
Trying is the first step of failure - Homer J Simpson |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:47:00 -
[122]
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.
|
booh
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:51:00 -
[123]
Amarr just need every second crystal to have switched dmg. Instead of EM/Thermal -> Thermal/EM.
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 09:02:00 -
[124]
First I'd like to mention that nerfing the mwd is by no means decided I was just throwing out out there to give you something to talk about
Quote: The MWD capacitor use increase sounds pretty harsh as far as inties and interdictors are concerned. Perhaps those ships should get a bonus to mwd cap consumption?
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.
Quote:
The Armageddon is the strongest of the Amarran battleships, and the only one that currently really fills a role(well). I would be wary, especialy if implementing EANM changes of increasing its fitting.
Which is why we shouldn't be tinkering with with too many things at one. We start with one thing and then see if that makes it overpowered and the next adjustment is dependant on how the first one turned out.
Quote:
I'm just wondering Tux, if you nerd mwd's, how are you going to stop it from nerfing gallente ships that use blasters, I mean, due to the short range of blasters, we almost always need a mwd to get into range, so its not about the constant overall speed, but the burst to get there.
If you look at my first answer then you can see a ship that aren't going super fast wouldn't be affected at all. So unless you're trying to go something like 3000m/sec on your blaster ship you wouldn't be affected at all.
Quote:
make istabs unique like DCU
Istabs aren't really the problem at all. They didn't help but there are factors in this that add far more velocity than istabs do.
Quote:
But please, whatever you do about nanoships, do not stacking nerf the agility bonus. Millions of indies would suddenly cry out in fear and then be suddenly silenced...
You can still use two modules that affect your inertia, mass and agility. Indies should be fine.
Quote:
It seems this could be a significant hit for very small ships that rely on speed alone to live. Are you planning on scaling the cap use:speed ratio a little differently for interceptors/interdictors? It's already difficult enough having to contend with nos & web at anything under 6km/s.
It doesn't need to be based on mass or size, its enough that its based on base velocity.
Quote:
You have to be careful here to still keep Eve fun to play... it doesnt matter if you build the ultimate space strategy game if all players are doing is watching energy bars go down on eachother (woa, that sounds soo kinky :p). Personally im amongst the ones who think fast reflexes is part of the fun of combat...just like any good fighting game, the player has to feel that he is influencing the battle by his actions in combat.
I just wanted to quote the naughty bit Seriously I don't want ships to just stay still, in fact I'd like velocity and direction to be more of a tactical element but battleships don't need to go 15km/sec to do that. Change the max MWD speed boost from ~500% to ~200%; leave everything else the same.
Quote:
Maybe then introducing it into the heat model is the way to go then, as someone suggested above.
We've talked about but frankly I'd like some kind of fix to this before heat hits the servers. Also I don't really like tying fixes to new features. That feature might then become some giant hulk of itty bitty features that are supposed to fix problems but can never really deliver.
_______________ |
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 09:02:00 -
[125]
Quote:
While i certainly understand that the people that use Khanid ships want them to be more viable in combat, I must admit that i fear that the Khanid ships if they are getting boosted as suggested in the Khanid mk II thread will utterly eclipse the Caldari missile boats due to the fact that armortanking allow you to tank and have spare utility slots.
Therein is the base difference between a shield tanker and an armor tanker. The shield tanker can tank and gank but the armor tanker can tank does less damage but has more flexibility in its med slots. Of course I wouldn't want Sacrilege for example to be better with missiles than Cerberus. As you might imagine this needs some considerable thought put into it.
Quote:
Have you thought about alternating T1 crystal damage emphasis?
Short answer is yes we have, I can't see it fixing the problem but it does help a little. You'd still be doing damage to the most heavily tanked t2 resistance. After all 1 race has this as primary resist and 2 races as secondary.
Quote:
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.
Right you are. I've put a stacking penalty on injection vents. Its not a huge penalty as you can't fit more than three of them but it helps.
Quote:
Why is it that when I find myself being overwhelmed, the possibility of escape must be impossible?
It shouldn't be impossible but with the current nanoships its more like guaranteed. We need to find a middleground in between those options.
_______________ |
|
Tarri
Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 09:08:00 -
[126]
Did you take a look at the pirate implants too and faction mwds? Because without those most ship ain¦t that fast (3000m/s something for a phoon is not that fast imo). ----
|
maarud
Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 09:29:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Tarri Did you take a look at the pirate implants too and faction mwds? Because without those most ship ain¦t that fast (3000m/s something for a phoon is not that fast imo).
No, because 3000m/s for ANY bs is to fast, thats the problem.
Maarud.
Proudly a Ex-BYDI member |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 09:30:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Tuxford
Which is why we shouldn't be tinkering with with too many things at one. We start with one thing and then see if that makes it overpowered and the next adjustment is dependant on how the first one turned out.
Thanks for the speedy reply. I have some more if you dont mind.
Has there been any thought to halving [or an other similar reduction] the cap use on lasers and then giving amarr real bonuses similar to how the speed bonus on minmatar ships was removed in exchange for higher base speeds on the ships?
Has teir 1 BC imbalance been looked at? Or the lack of a real downsizing option in the laser family?
---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 10:09:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Tuxford
Which is why we shouldn't be tinkering with with too many things at one. We start with one thing and then see if that makes it overpowered and the next adjustment is dependant on how the first one turned out.
Thanks for the speedy reply. I have some more if you dont mind.
Has there been any thought to halving [or an other similar reduction] the cap use on lasers and then giving amarr real bonuses similar to how the speed bonus on minmatar ships was removed in exchange for higher base speeds on the ships?
Has teir 1 BC imbalance been looked at? Or the lack of a real downsizing option in the laser family?
Cap use on lasers is something we haven't discussed recently. We have all discussed it in the past though and frankly I don't think its "fake bonus" in theory lasers should be just better than the other weapons but with crippling cap need. That discourages other races from using them. A similar thing could be said about projectiles. Most Minmatar ships get a rate of fire bonus on projectile turrets. Without that bonus they do crap damage.
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 except other races would find it easier to fit less potent lasers. It would only be a change for appearance sake and pretty pointless.
I'm glad you mentioned no real downsizing option. That is a problem to me which I have wanted to address but didn't really talk about. People tend to just compare the biggest baddest guns but in reality you're often sacrificing damage and range for a bit more tank. The drop in damage lasers take is a bit high when doing that. _______________ |
|
MMoroz
Stercus Accidit.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 10:26:00 -
[130]
Edited by: MMoroz on 16/02/2007 10:24:03 Lol now you wanna break things ehh, and after this patch you will be debating how to fix it.
So before you break something think - what is the problem, when/why dit it occured???? Hmmm wasn`t it when inerta stabs showed in game - oh yes... So fix the inertia stabs like they should work - bigger weight of the ship bigger requirements.
P.S. For people complaining about bs etc going faster than cruiser GO LEARN PHYSICS.
|
|
TerrorWOLF
J.H.E.N.R Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 10:34:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Tuxford
Which is why we shouldn't be tinkering with with too many things at one. We start with one thing and then see if that makes it overpowered and the next adjustment is dependant on how the first one turned out.
Thanks for the speedy reply. I have some more if you dont mind.
Has there been any thought to halving [or an other similar reduction] the cap use on lasers and then giving amarr real bonuses similar to how the speed bonus on minmatar ships was removed in exchange for higher base speeds on the ships?
Has teir 1 BC imbalance been looked at? Or the lack of a real downsizing option in the laser family?
Cap use on lasers is something we haven't discussed recently. We have all discussed it in the past though and frankly I don't think its "fake bonus" in theory lasers should be just better than the other weapons but with crippling cap need. That discourages other races from using them. A similar thing could be said about projectiles. Most Minmatar ships get a rate of fire bonus on projectile turrets. Without that bonus they do crap damage.
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 except other races would find it easier to fit less potent lasers. It would only be a change for appearance sake and pretty pointless.
I'm glad you mentioned no real downsizing option. That is a problem to me which I have wanted to address but didn't really talk about. People tend to just compare the biggest baddest guns but in reality you're often sacrificing damage and range for a bit more tank. The drop in damage lasers take is a bit high when doing that.
A idea i have for some time maybe move the cap use bonus as a static bonus to ships and add a bonus instead, dont have to be a dmg one.
You could all so introduce something similar to other races minmatar increase projectile PG use by 50% and put a 50% PG bonus on the ships. This would actually be a little boost to minmatar ships. You could do the same with hibrides or use cpu for them. Missiles are secondary weapons for all races doing something to them would be problematic
May Your Death Be Slow And Painful
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 10:44:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Goumindong on 16/02/2007 10:44:34
Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Goumindong Snip for space/trim quote tree
Cap use on lasers is something we haven't discussed recently. We have all discussed it in the past though and frankly I don't think its "fake bonus" in theory lasers should be just better than the other weapons but with crippling cap need. That discourages other races from using them. A similar thing could be said about projectiles. Most Minmatar ships get a rate of fire bonus on projectile turrets. Without that bonus they do crap damage.
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 except other races would find it easier to fit less potent lasers. It would only be a change for appearance sake and pretty pointless
I doubt other races will be jumping to fit current lasers with a 50% cap use reduction considering that even with the cap use bonus Amarrans are scrambling to fit autocannons and blasters on the ships that dont get damage bonuses ;) (punisher/maller/prophecy/apoc for example). The downfiting problem has a lot to do with that on cruiser levels, but on the battlecruiser level it should not[though still does]. For instance, on a maller, going from Focused Medium Pulse to 220 Autocannon you lose you no damage that would not be lost to falloff. Though that penalty is relativly low compared to the tracking, damage type switching, and cap use bonuses you gain when fitting 220 or 425 autocannons[which actualy do more raw damage with tech 2 ammo].
It seems that, while lasers were better when damage mods were not penalized, lasers had 20% more range, and hit point totals were much smaller, they are not so much anymore except on the battleship level where the larger absolute range bonus and slower[aside from nanoships] speeds really does create a significant damage buffer that other ships have to overcome after closing the distance and increasing their damage relative to the laser user. The bonuses dont nessesarily have to be damage related, they could also be a part of the other aspects of the weapons that make fitting them, even the smaller versions, worth while on ships that dont get damage bonuses. But I suppose that would have to look at what happens after any eanm changes.
---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Zarch AlDain
The Establishment Establishment
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:05:00 -
[133]
I think part of the problem with lasers may not actually be a problem with lasers - it is a problem with shield tanks.
At the moment it is very hard to use a shield tank in PvP. You cannot shield tank if you want to tackle, ewar, AB/MWD (or rather, you can a bit but each of the previous you add weakens your shield tank).
If there was just a way to tackle/ewar etc using low slots then you open up a whole new range of options - and with shield tanks appearing in PvP the lasers become useful again.
But given that low slots only boost other modules or your ship how can they be used to affect others? Well here is one idea to start things off:
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.
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?)
Zarch AlDain
|
Sinder Ohm
Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:07:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Zirator
Originally by: welsh wizard The MWD capacitor use increase sounds pretty harsh as far as inties and interdictors are concerned. Perhaps those ships should get a bonus to mwd cap consumption?
That is my main concern as well. I don't want my beloved small ships get hit by a nerfbat.
This is my concern aswell Inties and dictors should keep the ability to run MWD as they do now, without that these ships would realy suck.
Originally by: Blind Man okies so liek when u warp in on them u shod target them... and stuff k.then u FIRE ZE MISSILES
|
twit brent
Dark Centuri Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:08:00 -
[135]
Any word on deimos changes? Its a close range ship that:
1) Dies to nos 2) Has a horrible tank 3) Very vunerable by webbs 4) Horrible agility and speed 5) Has lots of fitting problems
When I trained up for it I was expecting a close range ship that could get in close and slug it out. The deimos fails on so many lvl's. The only thing it can kill solo is cruisers but cruisers can outrun it easy.
|
Engelious Angelion
Minmatar Liberty Rogues Coalition of Carebear Killers
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:19:00 -
[136]
ATM im living in an area, were our enamies are mainly using nano ships of all kinds, AND i dont see nano ships as such a big problem, they are hell to kill, but at the same time they arnt that dangerous for a well fittet ship to counter.
I think that the Nano ship issue can be solved rather easy...
1. put a Cap consumtion on Nanofibers..YES!.. not an active mod, but make the nanos start consuming cap, wen speeds are above 1000 m/s, and that the cap consumption increase the higher the speed... this would more or less make nano boats balanced, as if they fit the usual 7 nanos or so, their cap will be goane....wen they reach HIGH HIGH speeds.
2. plz dont nerf the MWD as the mwd as it currently is works great on frigates, tacklers, haulers and the likes, gives a speed boost but a nasty sig radius... so plz plz consider the whole of nerfing MWD's
3. [loose idea] Add a mod for the Webtifyers.. like with the ECM, a low slot mod. That Decrease the slow down period of a Ship getting hit with the webber. the main prob with nano boats wen fighting them aint getting close enoughf, but keeping them close long enoughf for the webber to work.
Thx for taking the time to read my idea.
_______________________________________________
|
Geld Ned
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:34:00 -
[137]
I see some problems if nerf MWD. It affect not only BS with specific setup as Typhoon but also cov ops that use MWD for escaping bubble by hitting MWD button and then cloaking.
Also i don't understand why one people will to fight ar much more important as another people will to not fight.
My suggestion is very simple: Redefine nanos. Let be this module not a modification of hull, but a very specific maneuvering engine that use a cap, a great amount of cap for compensate mass effect. Make so 5 nanos suck off all cap in 4 seconds... and vualaaa nanos still usable, but not for constant insane speed.
|
Pesadel0
Vagabundos
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:35:00 -
[138]
I'am sorry if i'am being a n ar** but tuxie are you mad?Nerfing MWD?nerfing the speed?Do you want us all doing 50 M/s and a inty orbiting at 450 m/s being hit by large guns?
You all are missing one thing in nanoBS ,yes they are fast ,yes they run ,but by hell who dies to a nanoBS?I like to compare the nanoBS to the druids in WOW,they run like hell but they cant kill a kitten .
What you should be pondering is and it will always be----- the NOS nerf ,or do you think that the nano BS just kill people with the cap booster?
All i see in this trend is NERF,NERF nerf ,i mean common Nanobs were there before kali what changed all of this WAS THE BOOST TO THE SPEED MODS / SPEED RIGS.
About the amar issue..Sure buff them but carefully because we dont want the pulse geddons back.And to the guy that said explosive damage on ammar.
|
Royaldo
Old Farts
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:45:00 -
[139]
please dont ruin my blasterthron more.
now
amarr, i see you have been thinking about my idea, lowering base em armor resistance. good. should help. if people want to tank it by using active hardeners, even better as long as you give amarr abit more thermal dmg. and please add 20 or so more cpu to arma and apoc.
khanid mk2: sacriledge should be a missile spamming armor tank. remove all gun bonuses. give it armor tank bonus and missile bonus.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 11:56:00 -
[140]
It's been said before, but it needs to be said again- the *key* here is nerfing the nano ships without destroying the already workable designs when it comes to Blaster BS (Hype and Mega), Interceptors, Interdictors and other frigs etc. that use MWDs. Notice that I left out the Vagabond.
The Vaga, along with the nano-BS are just too fast and are unbalanced. The combination of implants/rigs/nanos/istabs is just too effective when used in conjunction together. Small ships like interceptors only have a few low slots so you don't see the same issues occuring there in comparison to the Vaga and nano-BS with their 5-8 low slots available for nanofibers and istabs, plus the speed rigs compounding things a great deal. I'm all for nerfing nano ships, just don't screw the blaster BS and inties while you do it.
Lasers and EM resists: lower armor EM resists and boost shield EM resists? I don't think so. I have a better idea: how about we just buff the EM damage of lasers? It increases their effectiveness against armor slightly, and shields even more, and reduces the amount of time required to get into the armor of armor tankers as well.
Reducing the base EM resist on armor tanks is a horrible idea. All that will do is give shield tanking another relative buff, which is the last thing this game needs. And actually *increasing* the shield EM resist is just stupid. If we're going to do that, why not increase the armor explosive resist while we're at it?
All that would do is further homoginize the game and make the ships even less unique. Just buff the EM damage on lasers so that they slice through shields and bite into armor a bit more. Problem solved. We don't need to nerf EANMs or buff shields. Armor tanks already have it bad enough as it is without being nerfed vs. lasers and then losing across the board to everyone else (i.e. EM missiles etc.) when it isn't needed. Don't nerf armor tanks, just buff lasers.
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger hammer. |
|
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 12:46:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Pesadel0 I'am sorry if i'am being a n ar** but tuxie are you mad?Nerfing MWD?nerfing the speed?Do you want us all doing 50 M/s and a inty orbiting at 450 m/s being hit by large guns?
Yes because thats what I said Seriously reread my post and tell me where I said ships should going 50m/sec. Obviously a mwd change could do nothing else right? RIGHT?
I furthermore suggest you try to hit an inty going 450m/sec with large guns. Try it it'll be a fun experiment for you. _______________ |
|
Roshan longshot
Gallente Ordos Humanitas
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:09:00 -
[142]
Sorry I am getting a bad feeling about this....
My thoughts are Gallentte are about to get the shaft with this one.
Blaster boats are going to suck now.....
Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter pirate or mixture of them all.
[i]As read from the original box.
|
Linda kays
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:12:00 -
[143]
Hmmm, Now I haven't read all these posts, god there's a lot. But I think I get the general Idea about MWD's: It's used with multiple other mods in conjuncion to get a BS to go some 1km/s+. Here's my 2 isk's worth. I haven't really gotten around to make MWD's work prober on any boat yet. Need to say that, plus I'll be relating to theoretic physics rather then game stats.
To my knowlegde the MWD is a module designed to propel mass in a certain direction. The way it work is by generation small warp bubbles, that speeds op velocity. Now this makes perfect sense in my world, like with a ?ramjet?: You make thing move by exploding stuff behind it, thereby making it move in the oppisite direction, doing it multiple times will make the object go faster in the same direction. In actual space with no gravitational pull, you would make an object Change speed either by making a explosion behind the object or Propel some exhaust (Fire/air) out the oppisite direction you want to move. Aonther way to make a speed change would be to create a pull effect infront of the object (pulling the object closer). With movements acting like vectors in space, using a MWD would and should just "enlongage" the vector by say "x". Problem will then be trying to "bend" the Vector (Turn into different direction), if the "vector" long you need relative more "bend" effect to have the end-point change, and the closer you want the "end-point" to be, relative to you current position (Starting point), I actually think you'll need proportinal "bend effect".
TO make a long story short: If you have a BS normally going 100 m/s, With manuvabilaty 10, you could orbit something, even moving up but not equal to 100 m/s. Then you switch on a MWD going 200, you would lower Manuvabilaty to atleast 5. But it fact it such be proportional so (speed increase 100%, Manuva decrease ?100/1?). Then you really would get a hard time doing anything as to turn you ship / orbit stuff with speeds at just 100%.
This is the way I see MWD's work without ever having used them, but have read a lot of Stats, and descriptions, and backstory.
So before you start looking at the game stats for the module, what do you thing MWD should do and how should it work? Once those questions are answered, then nerf/boost the MWD. Same goes with a lot of module "nerf"/"boosts".
I like the game story first, THEN watch the game / play it. Same with books and movies. Everything is so much better if you read first, THEN watch it. If you Watch, then Read, you'll be very disappointed, unless the written stuff is nber class.
|
Feral Karkassia
Minmatar Mean Corp Veni Vidi Vici .
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:20:00 -
[144]
All I have to say is, I've been skilling toward the HAC everyone complains about for months, secondary skills and all. If they nerf it just before I get in it I swear to God I will quit this game. As far as it being overpowered, let's just say I've seen plenty taken out, and it isn't as hard as everyone complains about. The gentleman who says it isn't good gameplay, well, you want us to fly up to you and tank and fire all the big guns just like everybody else? Boring. Flying around really fast looking crazy is the whole appeal of Minmatar play. Vagabonds costs two hundred mil base for a reason. You might fly one and be difficult to kill, but you kill someone flying one and you've seriously hurt their finances.
I am Minmatar, and everyone always warned me not to become Minmatar. But you know what? The idea of a ragtag group of rebels using just their awesome speed and guts to win, well that's just my style. You say that twitch and play isn't Eve, but the Minmatar are as close as those of us who love that style are going to get. If you take that away, we're ****ed, plain and simple. Or at least, we'll be like a very rusty version of everyone else.
Minmatar=speed. Do what you like to MWD's and stabs, but please make darn sure you don't mess things up for our entire race.
Please, make the Wolf's propulsion trails blue again!!! |
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:28:00 -
[145]
Enter the dragon... geez this is a slippery slope..
I *really* hope you will keep the factor x20 you mentioned tux.. Typhoon moving 3km/s without penalty is something that in my opinion should be quite possible in the game.
What people should be asking is why do we see nanoBS and not the usual tacklers? Simple, a nanoBS can apparently kill something/do enough damage itself to be viable. Because let's not forget you need quite a bit of iskies to make a good nanoBS..
So what is the problem:
Although I would hate to see nos nerfed one of the problems is being able to nos at 25+ km doing 5km/s without penalty. The other problem is ofcourse missiles doing the same. Drones will obviously also hit regardless of operator velocity, but that is countered by the fact that you can't really call them back and you might slingshot out of control range. The other problem is the power of isk: With enough of it you can get the (overpowered? -well I know you already mentioned you would change crystal sets before the last tournament, but we all know how that ended) pirate implant sets, faction mods etc which are needed to be truly effective with a nano setup.
So how to combat these problems? Personally I don't think nerfing a bunch of mods to solve a very specific problem that only a few ships have, while the nerf will probably hit all ships using those mods is the answer here, but I'm not a dev.
I would rather see it put in the heat section that will come soonÖ, but I guess quite a few people are having too much troubles trying to counter the nanoBS.. Vagabond is a different issue I suppose, but I would like to see all HACs looked at. There's a lot of really annoying issues that need fixing, in my opinion well before nanoBS are looked at (POS access, Drones, blobbing and the amarr issue, etc).
About the amarr issue. Nerfing EANP II is bad mkay. It will lead to even bigger whines about the nerf itself, the stealth nerfs in cap, the stealth boost in missiles, shield tanking and caldari in general, etc etc. If you really want to change it make the game more homogeneous and change it to an active mod like the invul field (mjam 30% resistances). The fittings of active will obviously also come in as a bigger problem.
So we're on to damage. Lasers doing EM and Thermal.. the big problem here is like tux said: 3 of 4 races have a high base resistance versus thermal and with the omni armour tanks out there EM resistance gets to 90+ a bit easy. What to do.. Personally I would change the crystals to have EM + other iso EM + therm. Add: base armour hits are focussed on the other dmg type (20-80) and you're pretty much done. Try it with that for a while and see how the playerbase reacts. And yes just make them easier to fit.. changing the amarr ship fittings would mean they can easier fit all other mods.. and there is little chance caldari and minmatar would switch to lasers anytime soon..
It's good that something is finally planned to be done, but without any indications of schedules, I wouldn't get too exited. And nerfing nanoBS before fixing the obvious bugs is an unsult. I hope between all the station walking and faction warring you find the time to fix bugs too..
All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me.. Drone guide.. |
Awox
I Fought Piranhas
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:32:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Mysterlee Tbh I dont think mwds need nerfed at all, doing so would be a hard hit to blasterships, interceptors and other ships that rely on an mwd. Its not worth breaking a whole line up of ships to fix a few overpowered ones. Using charges to power an mwd is an especially bad idea, blasterships struggle to carry enough cap boosters as it is without needing to carry more stuff.
What really needs to be done is agility added to missiles which affects how fast they turn in space, they wont be able to turn fast enough to hit targets if you're orbitting at extreme speeds but are fine at average speeds.
Utility hardpoints need to be added to ships to prevent too many nos being fitted and maybe a 25% decrease in drain amount.
Finally change nanos, istabs and overdrives to be percentage based and you have your nano ship nerf without affecting ships that have been using these things as they were intended too badly.
On the subject of EANMs, this is another thing I dont think you need to nerf, alot of ships dont have the cpu to fit active hardeners so EANMs are the only way to go. I think the best solution would be to knock a flat 10% off EM resistance on armour making it 50%, do the same to shields on their explosive resist to help minmatar out a bit.
Oh, this guy wins tbh. Everything here makes sense! Do it! Now!
|
Izo Azlion
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:40:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Felysta Sandorn Okay, a couple of people said 'When you have BS 5...' Who in EVE under the age of 2 years (at the earliest) has BS 5 that hasn't just trained up for carrier and sold their account...
My CEO. Thanks.
Right. You cannot nerf MWD's to use Charges, to have a cooldown period, or to have a lesser speed boost. Why? Because its not plausible for the following reasons;
Charges - My cargo in my Thron, sometimes my Deimos, a Brutix and a Myrmidon is always filled with cap boosters. Their important. "Cap is life." If I start having to use less of them just so I can MWD to a target, only to run out of cap in half the time and die, then I'm going to lose alot of ships.
Cooldown - Scenario; 3 BS's, 20km apart, I start 20km from the first one. It takes me 2 cycles worth to get there, with my skills thats 28 seconds worth of MWD. By the time our gang has raped the first BS, I've then got another 20km to cover, but its possible my MWD is still cooling down. I'm a sitting duck, because I cant run to the gate, run out of scram range, or engage. Useless.
Less speed - So you've stopped the Nano Domi, Phoon, Vagabond, Curse, and whatever else. Great. "Let the MWD for Frigate size stay at 500% Bonus, make the Cruiser size MWD 300% and make the Battleship size MWD 200%! And all your problems are solved" I read previously. Yeah, right. 20km in a Blasterthron at around 270m/s with the MWD chewing its cap. 300m/s without a single rig.
I honestly have no suggestions, but since Istabs came in, things seem to have gotten pretty crazy. Let Snake implants go fast, let MWD's stay the same, but make a proper penalty on the mods.
Thanks,
- Izo. Izo Azlion.
---
Thanks to Stubnitz for the Sig. |
Alex Under
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:40:00 -
[148]
OK, let's call a 'spade' a 'spade' here...
The big part of the problem isn't speed per say, but when speed is combined with NOS. That's the real people. When you've got a NanoDomi orbiting you at 4km/s while NOSing you, that's the problem. The NanoDomi is good because of the NOS not because of speed. It's the NOS that allows the ship to maintain the MWD to run constantly without running out of CAP.
Tux, let's talk about modifying NOS before modifying speed. I bet you'll find that's where most of the problem lies. |
Izo Azlion
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:47:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Alex Under OK, let's call a 'spade' a 'spade' here...
The big part of the problem isn't speed per say, but when speed is combined with NOS. That's the real people. When you've got a NanoDomi orbiting you at 4km/s while NOSing you, that's the problem. The NanoDomi is good because of the NOS not because of speed. It's the NOS that allows the ship to maintain the MWD to run constantly without running out of CAP.
Tux, let's talk about modifying NOS before modifying speed. I bet you'll find that's where most of the problem lies.
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?
Izo Azlion.
---
Thanks to Stubnitz for the Sig. |
|
Tuxford
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 13:57:00 -
[150]
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. _______________ |
|
|
Wizzkidy
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 14:00:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Izo Azlion
Originally by: Alex Under OK, let's call a 'spade' a 'spade' here...
The big part of the problem isn't speed per say, but when speed is combined with NOS. That's the real people. When you've got a NanoDomi orbiting you at 4km/s while NOSing you, that's the problem. The NanoDomi is good because of the NOS not because of speed. It's the NOS that allows the ship to maintain the MWD to run constantly without running out of CAP.
Tux, let's talk about modifying NOS before modifying speed. I bet you'll find that's where most of the problem lies.
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?
Are you saying that a BS should be able to turn and move the an interceptor then?
|
Pepperami
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 14:11:00 -
[152]
No way do MWDs need a nerf, they aren't the problem..
It's the mix of nanos, inertias and snakes. Let's be honest if you want one of these 'uber' phoons that go 8k you need to be spending much more isk than for a faction ship or even capital ships - so they should be pwnmobiles against npc'ers (the brunt whiners). Snakes are clearly a massive boost, If it was up to me I'd remove pirate implants entirely because I feel they were brought in with the short-sightedness that has led to extreme setups, of course, that's not an option.
I do honestly believe the ships are fun, and should be usable - but also should be more easily counter able (Huggins and webber drones work, but that's not enough). 20k low % (30%?) webbers and a speed boost to webber drones and/or a module to increase drone speed would work. It would also make nano-ships counter able by people other than specialist pilots.
But on the plus side, sooner you nerf whatever you nerf, the sooner I'll stop using my indy-alt's nano domi and get him back into his over-powered 20sec scan cov-op :D
|
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 14:11:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Wizzkidy
Originally by: Izo Azlion
Originally by: Alex Under OK, let's call a 'spade' a 'spade' here...
The big part of the problem isn't speed per say, but when speed is combined with NOS. That's the real people. When you've got a NanoDomi orbiting you at 4km/s while NOSing you, that's the problem. The NanoDomi is good because of the NOS not because of speed. It's the NOS that allows the ship to maintain the MWD to run constantly without running out of CAP.
Tux, let's talk about modifying NOS before modifying speed. I bet you'll find that's where most of the problem lies.
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?
Are you saying that a BS should be able to turn and move the an interceptor then?
Never forget this is space we're talking about here.. Inertia is one thing, velocity another.
Also on the issue of nos tracking.. like i said before, I really don't want to see nos nerfed. An interceptor should not be able to ignore heavy nos just because it flies fast. It should remain a perfectly valid and usable tactic versus tacklers.
The problem here is BS flying at 25+ km doing 5+km/s and still using nos. Sure the same nos works against them too, but between cap boosters and a 4/4 nos/missile setup a nanoBS will only be annoyed by a 4 heavy nos non-nanoBS..
Please keep the big picture in mind when nerfing anything!
All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me.. Drone guide.. |
Chouar Lin
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 14:17:00 -
[154]
How about to make stacking penalty for "nano-devices" ? Plain and simple. There was gankgeddon with 8 heatsinks...Where is it now? Why? There are nano-pwnobiles...
|
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 14:21:00 -
[155]
I could have sworn that Drones&web are a valid defense for BS vs. small tacklers. Or am I on *****?
|
Wrayeth
The Black Rabbits Fatal Persuasion
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 14:46:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Wrayeth on 16/02/2007 14:43:05
Originally by: RossP Zoyka I could have sworn that Drones&web are a valid defense for BS vs. small tacklers. Or am I on *****?
You're on *****, unfortunately. Tacklers can orbit beyond web range and continue scrambling you, and when you send drones after them they will just pop them.
Right now, adding tracking to nos would spell nothing but trouble for the game. I hope it doesn't make it in. -Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Might As well Train Another Race |
Felysta Sandorn
Caldari Murder of Crows E N I G M A
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:08:00 -
[157]
The problem with making NOS tracking based is that what happens when you're a lone BS running around (perhaps away from an enemy fleet), when an inty catches up with you and scrams you? You lost your drones in your last battle, so you slap on a heavy NOS, the inty loses scram, and you get away just before the dozen BS jump in and kill you... Making NOS tracking based would be an inanely bad idea...
As for Amarr ships, the thing that everyone seems to be missing out is that lasers do the worst damage in reality compared to other turrets. Sure, when you crunch the numbers and use top skills and optimals they're better, but other races are designed to either get in close and DPS (Minnie and Gal), or stay far away and DPS (Caldari). The Amarr has that mid-range problem (optimals for pulse in a BS about 15km-20km), where you can't keep a ship (unless you fit your Apoc with dual Domination Web). Once the other race ships are within this optimal, laser tracking fails to work as it is meant to. If tracking worked as it should, and the lasers had a 100% chance to hit within their optimal (as projectiles and hybrids do), then it'd be balanced, but the fact is an Amarr ship cannot combat a Minnie or Gal ship at 0km-5km because they cannot hit them!
Can I get some feedback on this please? What's the info on laser tracking from the top? _________________________________________________________
|
Impecus
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:25:00 -
[158]
WHat about not allowing NOS and MWD to be used at the same time? This should have little to no effect on most smaller ships, and would prevent the NOS + MWD BS. You could justify it the same way no MWDs are allowed in deadspace..."interference."
This still doesn't resolve Nanophoons spamming torps at you, but at least it is a start. Persoanlly I feel since missle bays are classified as turrets, they should also be affected by tracking disrupters (especially if NOS end up needing to use tracking).
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:29:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Tasty Burger on 16/02/2007 15:31:54 Tux... would you agree that mostly the problem is with nano BATTLESHIPS and not with cruisers and below? Cruisers going really fast isnt a problem imo. Its the whole heavy nos + heavy drones + missiles combo that makes the battleships unfair.
Thinking about it I kind of like the thing where you use more cap when you go REALLY fast, like you said 20x base velocity, that sounds fine.
Just make sure you dont "accidentally" nerf minmatar speed tanks as a whole.
About the amarr thing... the problem really isnt with EM damage, its that Amarr arent versatile enough. I like the idea of "Capacitor Warfare". I don't think changing EANM or changing resists or damage types is a good thing. Maybe lowering CPU use of active hardeners would be good, but other than that I think Amarr should just get more versatility in other ways. Its not like minmatar dont have problems with shield tanks, even with EMP/PP ammo. Hell invuln IIs are better at resists than eanm II so explosive sucks even more against shields than EM on armor.
I think part of the problem is that minmatar are supposed to shield tank some ships, but we just don't have the midslots for it, since minmatar basically need microwarpdrives and thus cap boosters also, and tackling equipment too. If more ships shield tanked Amarr would have less problems. - It's great being Minmatar, ain't it? |
Steppa
Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:30:00 -
[160]
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 -
[161]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:34:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Tuxford the cruisers aren't really that great and Apocalypse might get a bit of a role twist.
I forgot to harp on this earlier. And it kinda ties into my point about the cap use on lasers. But first i would like to express my utter joy for an Apoc role twist. Maybe you can even use that awesome black matte model for the elite apoc that has been floating around.[Not suggesting you put tech 2 Battleships in the game, just the skin ;)]
Anyway:
How are you going to make the amarr cruisers good without busting them with non-racial weaponry?
At the moment, we have the Arbitrator, Maller, Omen and Augoror. The Augoror falls under logistics, so for the most part, we can ignore that as its problems dont stem from anything racial, but instead stem from role problems shared by many ships. And the Arbitrator is one of the better cruisers in the game, while also following a seperate design issue, and we can safely ignore that.
That leaves us with the Omen and the Maller. The "Gank" cruiser and the "tank" cruiser. Now, the tank cruiser can fit a mean tank, better with capless weapons. Nothing short of a laser bonus is going to make lasers be a better fiting on a ship that can barely make them explode with or without it. Drones and Missile launchers achieve a similar goal, but that doesnt go to fitting lasers, fiting lasers will still be sub-optimal. The Maller is one of those ships that loses nothing and gains everything from fitting other weapons. There is no other real tanking cruiser in the game, at least not one that can supply a real role as damage absorber[Since a Moa cannot tank and takle well at the same time]. And making that stronger also doesnt help the main problem with the Maller. Make it faster and it interfeers with minmatar territory, give it more guns and it doesnt solve the laser problem, give it more cap and it just makes capless weapons seem even more usefull, give it drones and there is no change in its best weapon use. Give it too much more damage and it completly overshadows the Omen in terms of tank and gank, when the Omen only really eclipses the Maller due to drones and a missile slot[that cant be fitted for the most part]
Comparing the Omen to the Rupture and Thorax is a bit off because the Thorax and Rupture are teir 3 while the Omen is teir 2. However, fixing it is a lot easier than fixing the Maller since it has a damage bonus already on there. What does in the Omen is fiting[and a small drone bay, but mainly its the fiting] and the fact that it wont do all that much more damage than the Maller when fitted for gank anyway[even an autocannon maller(HP maller caps out at about 317 DPS(MF)[261 for AC maller, barrage] and a HP Omen caps out around 395 dps(MF)[338 of that is guns], must less with tech 1 drones and less as skills diminish)]
Earlier, i mentioned that the Armageddon was still good because pulse lasers on the battleship level because of the speed of battleships and the large range with which they have to cover. Well, if we take that into heart and compare on a strict ratio basis the DPS of the Omen when compared to the Rupture[472, 220 + 5 light thermal drones + 2 arbalest heavies, barrage] and Thorax[680 dps, Ion + 5 med thermal drones. antimatter] then a Blasterthron ought to be doing about 1600 DPS and a tempest 1135.
Yet there is more agreement that battleships are balanced than there is that cruisers are(With regards to amarr), while cruisers close much faster and close a much shorter distance the DPS gap is also much wider, when a reasonable assesment should yield a smaller gap between them when the range difference is smaller, and speed differentials higher.
All in all, nixing the cap use bonus while giving the ships a real laser bonus makes the most sense given the numbers and the desire to give those cruisers a role with lasers.
I am not expecting a reply to this, just throwing things out there for you guys to consider when you get into the thick of it. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:44:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Steppa 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.
A battleship can already mount weapons that can reasonbly hit an MWD frigate. They are called small guns. Cruisers can too, these are also called small guns. No cruiser sized weapon even the dual x or quad x guns come close to frigate gun tracking quality.
Giving battleships small guns with more hitting power or range would make smaller ships obsolete. Examining what that looks like on the battleship level with frigate guns by say, "making every quad light gun equal to 4 frigate guns[or in the case of light beams, Octo light beam laser batteries]" would give battleships ridiclous damage while maintaining frigate like tracking.
E.G.
An Armageddon with octo light beam laser batteries with stats similar to Dual Light Beams would do 867 DPS @ 30km and 1300 @ 10. Gun damage only. With the ability to track a frigate at those distances. Half that is still pretty ridiculous. Half that again and... well then you are fitting small guns on your BS.
Sometimes we have to forgo "realism" for the sake of gameplay. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Izo Azlion
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:52:00 -
[164]
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.
Well, keep discussing it guys, because Nos needs sorting. Maybe you could take away the set amounts of stolen cap, and have it like turrets in terms of misses and excellent/wrecking hits. "Your Heavy Diminishing Nos Perfectly strike "Poor Bastards" Megathron, inducting 175 energy."
Nerf the i-stabs, and Nanos if it comes to it, but please dont touch the MWD's, they honestly work fine. Alot of cap, for alot of speed.
<3 Tux, we do appreciate what you do, we only talk about the bad stuff because its the stuff that needs work. I think its great Amarr are getting a buff.
Izo Azlion.
---
Thanks to Stubnitz for the Sig. |
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:04:00 -
[165]
Tux seemed to imply that a "nix to the cap bonus" would result in a neccessary decrease to the raw damage output of lasers for the sake of balance. This would then result in a damage bonus being neccessary to offset the decreased damage resulting from the removed cap requirement. All amounting to nothing technically (depending on what is viewed as more valuable, cap or damage).
While I do not think Amarr should be made "versatile" (they are afterall a cruel narrow-minded people) having variable 2ndary damage on crystals would be a nice small change. Allowing them to be capable of a little more strategy/adaption in different encounters without being truly versatile like those dirty disgusting Mims.
|
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:04:00 -
[166]
Tux seemed to imply that a "nix to the cap bonus" would result in a neccessary decrease to the raw damage output of lasers for the sake of balance. This would then result in a damage bonus being neccessary to offset the decreased damage resulting from the removed cap requirement. All amounting to nothing technically (depending on what is viewed as more valuable, cap or damage).
While I do not think Amarr should be made "versatile" (they are afterall a cruel narrow-minded people) having variable 2ndary damage on crystals would be a nice small change. Allowing them to be capable of a little more strategy/adaption in different encounters without being truly versatile like those dirty disgusting Mims.
|
Hektor Ramirez
Outer Ring Tourist Information Center
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:08:00 -
[167]
Any word on stealthbombers yet? -
|
Hektor Ramirez
Outer Ring Tourist Information Center
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:08:00 -
[168]
Any word on stealthbombers yet? -
|
Mrs Amadeus
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:13:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Mrs Amadeus on 16/02/2007 16:11:15 Hi Tuxford and thanks for the replies. Just the simple fact that you mentioned amarr's problems in a blog has made alot of people happy.
I have one problem though, and that would be NOS. Tracking on NOS is also just treating a small part of the problem. It won't fix the fact that a Nos-Domi=win against most BSes, or loading up on NOS will pretty much assure victory over another similar sized vessel. I agree it will help solve the nano boat issue, but it still leaves nos as an overpowered module.
I would love to see Nos suffer from a similar fitting restriction like DCUs or MWDs. Only 1 or 2 per vessel with certain ships (curse/pilgrim) allowed to fit more than that. Or conversely in addition to tracking; cut the amount of cap drain in half on all NOS sizes and adjust the curse/pilgrim bonuses to higher levels (similar to the ECM nerf.)
|
Mrs Amadeus
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:13:00 -
[170]
Edited by: Mrs Amadeus on 16/02/2007 16:11:15 Hi Tuxford and thanks for the replies. Just the simple fact that you mentioned amarr's problems in a blog has made alot of people happy.
I have one problem though, and that would be NOS. Tracking on NOS is also just treating a small part of the problem. It won't fix the fact that a Nos-Domi=win against most BSes, or loading up on NOS will pretty much assure victory over another similar sized vessel. I agree it will help solve the nano boat issue, but it still leaves nos as an overpowered module.
I would love to see Nos suffer from a similar fitting restriction like DCUs or MWDs. Only 1 or 2 per vessel with certain ships (curse/pilgrim) allowed to fit more than that. Or conversely in addition to tracking; cut the amount of cap drain in half on all NOS sizes and adjust the curse/pilgrim bonuses to higher levels (similar to the ECM nerf.)
|
|
CoLe Blackblood
Murder-Death-Kill Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:21:00 -
[171]
Edited by: CoLe Blackblood on 16/02/2007 16:18:24 There are too many bandaids being applied to a subject that was not a problem prior to Revelations. Sure a full set of snakes nanos and istabs got a BS rolling beforehand but adding rigs to the mix and that's where you have the problem.
NOS - No bandaid needed MWD - introduction of heat would be very interesting for these, other than that they have been working correctly in my opinion up til Kali. Nanos - None needed either Snakes - noone complained before istabs - maybe these need looking into Rigs - an overpowered boost, needs to be looked at heavily. If overheating were introduced to MWDs, vent rigs could be used to actually cool the module, not boosting speed but rather allowing it to run longer.
Nerfing NOS is not the answer. Bandaids should not be applied either.
Rigs are the problem, not MWD. Roll back pre-Revelations
~CoLe Blackblood |
CoLe Blackblood
Murder-Death-Kill Blood Raiders Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:21:00 -
[172]
Edited by: CoLe Blackblood on 16/02/2007 16:18:24 There are too many bandaids being applied to a subject that was not a problem prior to Revelations. Sure a full set of snakes nanos and istabs got a BS rolling beforehand but adding rigs to the mix and that's where you have the problem.
NOS - No bandaid needed MWD - introduction of heat would be very interesting for these, other than that they have been working correctly in my opinion up til Kali. Nanos - None needed either Snakes - noone complained before istabs - maybe these need looking into Rigs - an overpowered boost, needs to be looked at heavily. If overheating were introduced to MWDs, vent rigs could be used to actually cool the module, not boosting speed but rather allowing it to run longer.
Nerfing NOS is not the answer. Bandaids should not be applied either.
Rigs are the problem, not MWD. Roll back pre-Revelations
~CoLe Blackblood |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:24:00 -
[173]
Originally by: RossP Zoyka Tux seemed to imply that a "nix to the cap bonus" would result in a neccessary decrease to the raw damage output of lasers for the sake of balance. This would then result in a damage bonus being neccessary to offset the decreased damage resulting from the removed cap requirement. All amounting to nothing technically (depending on what is viewed as more valuable, cap or damage).
While I do not think Amarr should be made "versatile" (they are afterall a cruel narrow-minded people) having variable 2ndary damage on crystals would be a nice small change. Allowing them to be capable of a little more strategy/adaption in different encounters without being truly versatile like those dirty disgusting Mims.
Yes, i know. I am giving arguements against that "nessesary decrease" because i dont think it holds water. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Alex Under
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:33:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Izo Azlion
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.
Well, keep discussing it guys, because Nos needs sorting. Maybe you could take away the set amounts of stolen cap, and have it like turrets in terms of misses and excellent/wrecking hits. "Your Heavy Diminishing Nos Perfectly strike "Poor Bastards" Megathron, inducting 175 energy."
Nerf the i-stabs, and Nanos if it comes to it, but please dont touch the MWD's, they honestly work fine. Alot of cap, for alot of speed.
<3 Tux, we do appreciate what you do, we only talk about the bad stuff because its the stuff that needs work. I think its great Amarr are getting a buff.
Ok, let me point out something here. The reason Nano setups Like the NanoDomi and NanoPhoon have become popular since Revelations is because of the ECM nerf. Without being able to NOS you, the 'NanoShip' is foobared. Let's face it, ECM was the perfect counter to a Nano ship setup. You didn't see that many NanoDomi's and NanoPhoons prior to Revelations. Now they are all the rage simply beacuse they can't be jammed by ECM, and NOS can't be countered by any other way.
So all in all, CCP created this scenario by nerfing ECM.
--> That's just my opinion. |
raven415
Caldari Special Projects Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:41:00 -
[175]
my understanding is that Nanos make a ship lighter by making the structure thiner. It seams to me that stacking them would prevent the ship from doing a lot of things. Ships stress at high speed would start doing damage to itself. The answer to that would be the damage control mods witch do consume cap and at higher speeds could consume more. Armour Damage from the supporting frame buckling at high speeds is also a real possibility. Interceptors are designed for speed. Battleships are not and should not be able to handle high speed stresses.
|
Izo Azlion
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 16:52:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Alex Under
Originally by: Izo Azlion
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.
Well, keep discussing it guys, because Nos needs sorting. Maybe you could take away the set amounts of stolen cap, and have it like turrets in terms of misses and excellent/wrecking hits. "Your Heavy Diminishing Nos Perfectly strike "Poor Bastards" Megathron, inducting 175 energy."
Nerf the i-stabs, and Nanos if it comes to it, but please dont touch the MWD's, they honestly work fine. Alot of cap, for alot of speed.
<3 Tux, we do appreciate what you do, we only talk about the bad stuff because its the stuff that needs work. I think its great Amarr are getting a buff.
Ok, let me point out something here. The reason Nano setups Like the NanoDomi and NanoPhoon have become popular since Revelations is because of the ECM nerf. Without being able to NOS you, the 'NanoShip' is foobared. Let's face it, ECM was the perfect counter to a Nano ship setup. You didn't see that many NanoDomi's and NanoPhoons prior to Revelations. Now they are all the rage simply beacuse they can't be jammed by ECM, and NOS can't be countered by any other way.
So all in all, CCP created this scenario by nerfing ECM.
--> That's just my opinion.
And if you buff ECM again, we start losing T2 ships to Rifters with multispecs.
Its happened.
:)
Izo Azlion.
---
Thanks to Stubnitz for the Sig. |
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:24:00 -
[177]
Yes, i know. I am giving arguements against that "nessesary decrease" because i dont think it holds water.
A damage, range, and tracking bonus is suppousedly built into lasers which are meant to be completely unique to the Amarr. If they make the change you are suggesting then any race could use lasers which ruins that "unique advanced technology" philosophy.
I am not saying don't do it! But I am saying that removing cap need for lasers and replacing with another bonus is not as simple as it sounds. Main problem being that future changes to lasers after that point would always have to take EVERY OTHER race into consideration.
What would be easier would be for you to identify what weapon bonus you want associated with Amarr ship skills the most. Then build that bonus into the current cap-sucking lasers. This would make Amarr ships more effective without giving other races a chance to indirectly benefit from their "unique technology".
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 17:36:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Goumindong on 16/02/2007 17:33:55
Originally by: RossP Zoyka Yes, i know. I am giving arguements against that "nessesary decrease" because i dont think it holds water.
A damage, range, and tracking bonus is suppousedly built into lasers which are meant to be completely unique to the Amarr. If they make the change you are suggesting then any race could use lasers which ruins that "unique advanced technology" philosophy.
I am not saying don't do it! But I am saying that removing cap need for lasers and replacing with another bonus is not as simple as it sounds. Main problem being that future changes to lasers after that point would always have to take EVERY OTHER race into consideration.
What would be easier would be for you to identify what weapon bonus you want associated with Amarr ship skills the most. Then build that bonus into the current cap-sucking lasers. This would make Amarr ships more effective without giving other races a chance to indirectly benefit from their "unique technology".
No, it is as simple as it sounds because with pulse lasers there is no supposed damage or tracking boost, only a range boost[which is a damage boost, but only if the range advantage is sufficient enough that the divide cannot be crossed easily by opposing ships].
And with beams they are running the lowest range of all the long range weapons. At the point where range is more important than damage.
Giving lasers a universal bonus does not work because different ships for different roles need to do different things. Ships that need more DPS dont get it, or, if they do, ships that dont need more dps get too much. That is why you have to build the bonus into each ship and not the weapon. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Nomme
Mu..
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:23:00 -
[179]
First we had an utter NOS war,then players dicovered Rigs and Inertstabs,then we got this Rash of cookie cutter NanoNostaBS. I have never seen any of these ships used without the heavy use of NOS. So clearly to sustain these speeds these ships already have a cap problem,and most I know already use injectors. So why is there talk of complicated measures to target the MWD and its cap usage across all classes? Its the BS HP/agility and the ability to sustain these speeds with the use of Heavy NOS and backup of charges,that makes it possible anyway. Why not just place a penalty between the use of multiple NOS and Inertstabs and Nanos? Indeed it could go further and include a huge increase to Signature radius,when using multiple nos+and IStabs Nanofibers. Also why no highslot mod to be able to resist NOS?somethng like a capacitor shield with stacking penalty for multiple units. TBH since the Hitpoint buff,this isn't just about Nano BS,but more NOS. Tracking/NOS imho will just encourage mass goonfleet type nosfrigs to circumvent the change,(if as I suspect is being suggested is the same as IFNI posted in the TEch and Research section some months ago).
|
Mack Dorgeans
Camelot Innovations
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 18:58:00 -
[180]
Personally, my biggest fear with potential speed module changes is that it will unnecessarily hurt ships that don't abuse the modules. For instance, nanofibers are pretty much the best option for industrials because they don't nerf cargo capacity. If nanos were changed in such a way that they no longer boosted speed or using more than one or two resulted in stiff penalties, then a lot of industrial pilots would be left with very few speed boosting options beyond an AB or MWD. Sometimes I use a nano on a combat ship for that little bit of extra agility and speed.
Whatever happens, I hope the devs remember that not everyone overuses speed modules and that any nerf is bound to have negative consequences on a lot of ships and setups. It would be nice if any changes made don't trigger several other later changes to "fix" the nerfs as a result.
|
|
RossP Zoyka
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 19:31:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 16/02/2007 17:33:55
Originally by: RossP Zoyka Yes, i know. I am giving arguements against that "nessesary decrease" because i dont think it holds water.
A damage, range, and tracking bonus is suppousedly built into lasers which are meant to be completely unique to the Amarr. If they make the change you are suggesting then any race could use lasers which ruins that "unique advanced technology" philosophy.
I am not saying don't do it! But I am saying that removing cap need for lasers and replacing with another bonus is not as simple as it sounds. Main problem being that future changes to lasers after that point would always have to take EVERY OTHER race into consideration.
What would be easier would be for you to identify what weapon bonus you want associated with Amarr ship skills the most. Then build that bonus into the current cap-sucking lasers. This would make Amarr ships more effective without giving other races a chance to indirectly benefit from their "unique technology".
No, it is as simple as it sounds because with pulse lasers there is no supposed damage or tracking boost, only a range boost[which is a damage boost, but only if the range advantage is sufficient enough that the divide cannot be crossed easily by opposing ships].
And with beams they are running the lowest range of all the long range weapons. At the point where range is more important than damage.
Giving lasers a universal bonus does not work because different ships for different roles need to do different things. Ships that need more DPS dont get it, or, if they do, ships that dont need more dps get too much. That is why you have to build the bonus into each ship and not the weapon.
I agree. That being said, actually implementing a change like that would require a huge amount of work and storyboarding possible exploits with lasers and every other race's ships while improving lasers would only require investigation with one race's ships.
Either scenario works with me. (though to be honest, I would prefer if they took your route!)
|
Phelan Lore
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:29:00 -
[182]
Tuxford do you have any response to my comments that nerfing speed simply encourages blobbing and camping and reduces the feasibility of tactical small gangs?
In 0.0 speed is life. You either go fast or you blob or you die. Those are the only options. Removing speed leaves dying and blobbing. -
|
Steppa
Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:34:00 -
[183]
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.
|
Szent AdamKiraly
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 21:49:00 -
[184]
Nerfing Nanoboats is a move away from tactical PvP, a move toward stationary combat, and directly promotes blob warfare. Furthermore, it makes low sec less survivable for younger players.
The nanoboat tank is paper thin and relies on a maintinance of velocity for it to be effective. To maintain proper velocity and effectivly engage targets requires skill and tactics, (correct orbit range, awareness of large colidables, enemy speed and vector) much more so than sitting at a gate and hitting F1-F8 (not to mention a lot more fun).
Following the ECM and Stab nerf I have noticed many younger characters speed tanking, as it is one of the few viable options to get past and even engage a blob gate camp. I see the Nanoboat nerf discouraging younger players from low-sec and 0.0 exploration. If you want the giant alliances and long standing players to be the only ones having fun with PvP, then I say nerf it.
|
Buccaneer Bill
Caldari Skill Level Six
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 22:20:00 -
[185]
I strongly agree with Szent.
Why nerf something that encourages younger players to participate in eve PvP ? I thought we whole point is to get more people to enjoy the game quicker, rather than to grind up the SP before you can be effective against the "Blob"
Working out a tactic to counter is them is the way to go - Nerf is the easy way out for those that have a lot of SP. "Have you hugged a Pirate today" |
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 22:35:00 -
[186]
I have to disagree with people who insist that nerfing nanoships would encourage "blobbing". If anything, things like nanoships are one of the things that cause "blobbing". If you've got two or three nanophoons and/or vagabonds going 12km/s farting around your space, there is no way that you're going to catch them with anything less than a blob, you will simply not be able to tackle them and maintain it because you will either a) not be able to keep up with them, b) you'll get nossed so you can't keep your own scrambler, MWD, or webs going, c) in the case of the vagabond, you'll get pretty much one-shotted if you're in an interceptor, d) a few nano ships will have enough DPS and NOS to blow up major damage-dealing ships. So basically, yeah, you're going to need a whole bunch of buddies to take care of it.
That said, the problem with speed isn't the microwarpdrive, because that already is sustainable only on battleships with the help of Heavy Nosferatus and injectors, so leave that alone. The problem is that there are too many things that push ship speeds to the extreme, those being rigs, inertia stabilizers, Skirmish Warfare bonuses, and possibly the worst and oldest offender, Snake Implants. 8km/s vagabonds were already a huge pain to deal with before revelations, especially if they had stabs, but even without stabs they are pretty heinous, though less gutsy.
I hope that, after this fix, you can still go 3 or 4km/s in a nanoed out battleship, because that is genuinely fun and can be dealt with. 6km/s is difficult, 8km/s is really getting silly, but 10km/s and above is right out stupid. I feel that this is the most important distinction to make about speed with regard to imbalance.
Sig removed, lacks game related content. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -wystler TRIP DRIVE ACTIVE |
BlackHorizon
Caldari Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 22:53:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Humpalot I hate to be the carebear PvE gal here but on looking at the proposed changes for Amarr I am still not seeing a complete fix. Or rather, the fix proposed seems to mostly apply to PvP (EANM's, giving Amarr a cap warfare role, etc.).
However, that still does not help them in the PvE side of the universe. Being stuck with just EM and thermal damage still gimps them. There are numerous stories around of people in Amarr ships being wholly unable to drop some Angel Cartel ships for insance whereas every other race has a ship that could do so. Further, cap warfare versus NPCs is of no use so that role while nice in PvP is a non-starter in PvE.
I realize many of you couldn't give a crap about the PvE world but it is part of the game and seems it needs consideration.
This is a good point. Perhaps the Apocalpyse role change will address it. The question is, what sort of role change is it? If it's a cap warfare change (eg bonuses to nos/neut drain amount), then it won't help PvE. However, if it's towards the much-wanted Big Arbitrator, then it will help enormously.
I would hope its the latter. I've suggested this before (ie. turning the apoc into a Big Arbitrator). It would add great PvE ability in addition to unique PvP capabilities (not to mention the first T1 Amarr ship with more than 4 mid slots).
Grid/CPU/stats similar to a Dominix (slightly lower grid than a domi, but more CPU) 6/6/6 slots (4 launchers hardpoints, 2 turrets) 10% drone HP/damage, 20% Tracking Disruptor Optimal per level 225 m3 drone bay
Tux, what sort of role change are we talking about?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:09:00 -
[188]
One would assume that they would leave, at least, the most expensive of the faction ships alone. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:09:00 -
[189]
One would assume that they would leave, at least, the most expensive of the faction ships alone. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Steph Wing
Gallente Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:29:00 -
[190]
Quote: . Looking at microwarpdrive stats it shouldn't come as a big surprise that these modules aren't supposed to be sustainable,
Then why does the Thorax get a reduction in cap loss from MWDs? --- "I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." |
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:49:00 -
[191]
So it has enough cap to tank & shoot after it uses the MWD to get into blaster distance?
|
Kayscha
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 00:30:00 -
[192]
Many suggestions have been made on how to do it, yet I still fail to see exactly WHY my close combat inty cycling targets at high speeds and small orbits needs to be nerfed. Sure, I'm a nuisance to the big guns, but I don't pack that much damage and smartbombing me is a valid counter, not to mention the regular splash damage missile hits I still get even though I should be able to outrun them. I thought variety was all-important to every aspect of eve - why shouldn't there be a reasonable trade-off between weak but fast and slow but powerful? I don't want to be forced to field a bs from some point forward to accomplish anything at all, combat-wise (mission-running, that is)? Or am I just going to be the sad sacrifice to the greater good of improving some miniscule PvP balance detail?
|
Nebulae Mem
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 01:42:00 -
[193]
My suggestion:
1. Drop Nanofibers from the game. Or find a different role.. 2. Give Overdrives a slight mass/agility penalty (Torque steer ) 3. Lower the mass/inertia bonus on Istabs from -15% to -10% (I'm using T2 Istab for an example) 4. Give Istabs a stacking penalty so that fitting more than 3 is pointless
If you want speed, Use overdrives and suffer a bit of penalty If you want agility, use the Istab, or two.
If you want both, use both, but at less effectiveness. And don't frack with MWD.
|
Nyxus
GALAXIAN Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 02:25:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Nyxus on 17/02/2007 02:23:44 A couple of suggestions.
On downsizing lasers Consider this: Projectiles get the same range with slightly less damage when downsizing. Blasters get more range with slightly less damage when downsizing. Make downsized lasers do more damage with lesser range. It would fit the precedents already established for range and damage while making downsized lasers more useful than they are now. Currently thier less damage, less range makes them an all crappy choice atm.
Apoc suggestion Amarr are capacitor specialists. Use the already balanced Bhaalgorn amarrian bonus for the apoc.
Change dronebay to 200m3 -10% laser cap use per level +10% Nos amount per level
Less dronage than a Domi, sacrifices damage to do cap warfare, can still use lasers. Cap bonus has been on the Bhaalgorn for a LONG time and has already been balanced (if you have ever fought one, it's a good ship with bonuses but not uber).
It would be Amarrian, interesting, and a good addition/niche for our fleet.
Thanks for listening Tux. We appreciate it.
Nyxus
The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships. |
Kiwimagic
Caldari Star Ocean Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 02:28:00 -
[195]
Nice blog,
I think the idea of dropping EM resist's on armour is an awesome idea, its not nice know every single ship in eve has a min 60% resist to your primary damage type.
Nano nerf - long time comming IMO bs's just aren't ment to go that fast, was far to much of a advantage for gankers. MWD's I don't see an issue with them other than what you've posted that they aren't designed for that. rather than going to change alot of mods, would it be easier to just give everyship a max speed, weather u fit a pile of nano's your ship never went faster than X spd. but if you didn't fit spd mods you just went at the speed you have fit to go.
You could not allow weapon systems to function while MWD is active.
|
Oedus Caro
Caldari Caldari Deep Space Ventures
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 03:41:00 -
[196]
Tux, in a totally non-fruity way, I love you man... For me, this is some of the nicest EVE news ever.
P.S. While you're tinkering with MWD's, either make them work in dead-space or take them away from those pesky NPC's, eh?
|
Leon 026
Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 05:30:00 -
[197]
An inty that isnt moving at those speeds, is a dead inty.
And imo, MWD isnt the problem, its ships putting on more than 3 nanofibers/i-stabs that are the problem. Wont matter whether the MWD uses charges or not, they'll still be flying at stupid speeds. Whereas, interceptors NEED to sustain the MWD if they actually want to live. -------
Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings |
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 09:06:00 -
[198]
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.
|
Lygos
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 09:15:00 -
[199]
Best way to "fix" Amarr:
-Make shield tanking in pvp both practical and viable with tactical lowslots, or powerful lowslot anti-ew.
-More need and opportunity for mid-range combat.
-Take another look at the Neutralizer. Consider making it a "capless" weapon that reduces max capacitor for both target and user. It's a "big PG, big cap" weapon, and it could become a good counter for the Nos.
-Cap booster bonuses. 3rd bonuses for all ships? 2nd bonuses were awesome, and popular.
Individual ships: -Coercer: Sensor booster AND Tracking computer. -Omen: Speed or dps or drones. 1/3 plenty. -Geddon: Needs more cap. -Arbi: Just about perfect.
I'm pretty sure there are no other T1 Amarr ships.
--- T2 Risk | Corp Divisions |
Fon Revedhort
Aeria Gloris Inc United Legion
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 09:43:00 -
[200]
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.
QFT
|
|
Ulitio
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 10:15:00 -
[201]
I dunno about anyone else, but when I read the blog, I was kinda offended. I know CCP has ideas on what EVE is and I fully respect that. But I would think that CCP would be better off by actually going for what their customers want rather than what they want. I know you guys can do it, you did warp to zero and made a good part of what I *****ed about in eve just go away(and I thank you for that)
I know EVE won't likely be twitch, but imagine if that did happen. I think Id have to take a leave of absence or something like that. I can just imagine the fun of a game like EVE where I the player actually DOES count for something.
One thing CCP should consider... The Nanodomi and Nanophoon are symptoms of a problem(People like to go fast.) You can solve the symptoms, but I believe that if you do all you will buy is time. People in this game(like other MMOGs) do the damndest things, and they will likely find something just as fast. So what I would do is rather than nerf the Nano, make the damn thing obsolete. Give us something fast er and fun.
|
Martin Mckenna
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 10:32:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Razin Could we get more detail on NOS "overhaul"?
/signed
at the moment these are the key factors that write the outcome of a 1 v 1 fight (apart from intys maybe)
|
Kleintje
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 11:18:00 -
[203]
Originally by: welsh wizard The MWD capacitor use increase sounds pretty harsh as far as inties and interdictors are concerned. Perhaps those ships should get a bonus to mwd cap consumption?
I agree. For instance ...
Recon : Crusier Skill Bonus, Recon Skill Bonus, Role Bonus (ozone use) Command : Cruiser Skill Bonus, Command Skill Bonus, Role Bonus (reduction in Link module CPU need) Interceptor : Frigate Skill Bonus, Interceptor Skill Bonus, Role Bonus (reduction in MWD cap nerf)
Also in relation to the OMNI tank sitution. Maybe if you gave us the choice to set our own resistances to the ships like you have the choice of attributes on the character start screen. A - / + button next to the specific resistance on the ship fitting screen would allow us to adjust our base resistances to that which we choose. I can see how this would unbalance some ships though so might not be a good idea
"BoB is like Tom on MySpace, soon as you start an alliance BoB has the first default character" |
Grytok
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 13:26:00 -
[204]
If you want to stop a BS hitting those ridiculous speeds without nerfing the other Shiptypes (Interceptors f.e.), then change the boni of the Modules as follows
Inetria Stabilizer: 15% Inertia, -10% Structure HP Nanofibre: 10% Speedbonus, with stacking-penalty like Hardeners Overdrives: 15% Speedbonus and -10% Agility
Problem solved! .
|
Mastin Dragonfly
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 16:01:00 -
[205]
Would be nice if you had split the blog into two parts, one for speed and one for amarr. Split discussion threads ftl.
|
babylonstew
Caldari Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 16:36:00 -
[206]
if one of the major problems is speed rigs, you have a couple of options with them tbh you could either up the calibration cost to (for example) 225 for tech 1 and 250 for tech 2. (means you cannot fit 2 or more to any ship) or, change the drawbacks tech 1 -10% powergrid for example, this forces people to drop an i/stab/ nano for a rcu for example that way, it wont nerf travel set ups, but forces people to either fit a grid rig, loose a low slot or 2, or loose some highs? thoughts?
Originally by: Devilish Ledoux Don't think of it as being kicked out of the Federation; think of it as beating the rush
|
Siri Blue
Gallente Duvolle Laboratories Blue Division
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 17:50:00 -
[207]
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!
|
Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 18:35:00 -
[208]
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.
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 19:24:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Fon Revedhort
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.
QFT
If you think about it there is only 1 thing that matters tactically for engaging enemy fleets : Get a cloaking ship close to the enemy fleet. Solves all your problems since close range can engage at their prefered distance + ditto long range.
After that its just calling targets and sticking to them. So 2 thumbs up for tactical game play. Right ?
|
Nyxus
GALAXIAN Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 19:33:00 -
[210]
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.
This is a fantastic point. The tanking line of ships has never been about overall damage. Losing some damage doesn't effect them much (if any).
Gaining another tank bonus would differentiate them significantly. Imagine a maller with resist bonuses and armor repair amount bonuses. THAT would be something worth flying.
Nyxus
PS- Please give ships with an extra "utility highslot" enough fittings to put something in there. A nos or smartbomb of appropriate size would be nice.
The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships. |
|
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.
|
|
sakana
Purgatorial Janitors Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 20:51:00 -
[241]
Edited by: sakana on 19/02/2007 20:49:19 I think the speed problem only becomes a problem when it refers to ships such as nanophoons and nanodomis...ships that basically weren't intended to go 4kms. So if you are going to nerf the speed mods in some way, try and do it so that ships such as interceptors and cruisers like the vagabond remain the same...if thats possible
on the three options:
* Make it require charges * Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity * Not allow people to use cap booster when mwd is active
1. Please don't make it require charges, its v annoying having to carry such things around :) 2. I think i like this. if you made it so the inty could go 6-7km/s for long enough to reach his target, thats all thats really needed. 3. if you cant use a cap booster while mwding, what about blasterboats? i warp into a belt in my megathron and there is a target 50km away, i'm going to need to mwd to him, and thats going to take a lot of cap. so if you do this, your basically nerfing close range ships because they'll never have the cap to get into range.
as for the above post that suggests the speed ship role is highly specialized, i disagree. all you need is the isk for some rigs and with crap navigation skills like mine you can still get a 3-4km+ domi with ease. but as you say i do like the idea of speed ships as well...its just that everyone does it these days :( ------------
|
Revan Ano
Terra Rosa Militia
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 23:13:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Namo Iluvatar 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
Has the thought of ship role been considered for the rigs slots. No stacking of Rigs except for ones that a ship is designed for. In the case of the Interceptor then speed rigs could be stacked. Now this is a quick off the cuff suggestion so I am sure there will be plenty of holes shot into it.
|
Baron Serakh
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 01:02:00 -
[243]
Edited by: Baron Serakh on 20/02/2007 00:58:33 Whatever the solutions are, please dont let it nerf inties. These are not a problem currently and have a good niche role that isnt overpowered.
If mwds ARE forced to be impossible to sustain, make damn sure the sig rad increase is dynamic with speed, or only effective when mwd is engaged.
|
Bobo Biggles
Gallente B.Biggles Corp
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 01:13:00 -
[244]
In the Blog is was stated:
"Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off."
The key here, to me, is "when going into a fight", if I'm jumping from system to system minding my own busness and happen to jump into a camp and I was not planning on "going into a fight" and should be allowed to "warp in on anything and if I cant handle it just warp off", if I have carefully fitted my ship so that I can "just warp off".
What bothers me is the mentality that if something changes the way people have played the game it has to be nerfed. If this was the case in real life those of us who were silly enought to crawl out of the water and try breathing air should have been nerfed. To me one of the big "thrills" of the game is finding new ways to do things and meeting someone that has found a new way to stop me from doing this.
Yes I understand that this is a game and at times some of the items that have been introduced to the game are unbalanced. But have all the "in game" ways of dealing with this speed issue beeen explored. Or is this a case of someone saying "dang that ship is fast, I dont like that, I should whine until someone changes the game so people cant do that anymore."
I guess what I am saying is that I hope that if this "speed" issue get "fixed" it is because the items that allow it are truely unbalanced and that this is not just a case of the "squeeky wheel getting the things they dont like nerfed."
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 02:06:00 -
[245]
Edited by: Deschenus Maximus on 20/02/2007 02:03:48 On the subject of nos (since this does indeed tie in to the nano problem):
Linky
Anyways, IBTL
Originally by: Glenntwo You should be an anti pirate because you enjoy giving a player who is looking for an unfair fight an extremely unfair fight
|
DoctorDeath
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 04:20:00 -
[246]
ATM we have Projectiles = vary able damage - can be RAINBOWED SLOW ROF high alpha low dps no cap usage hybrid = kinetic / thermal - some cap usage HIGH close range damage Lasers = EM / thermal - heavy cap usage 60%em Armor resist 70% for minni mid to high damage output , kills shield tanks,weak on armor , hard to maintain tank without cap injectors or without a nos. ****** geddon - yes could do a little slot aranging apoc - needs a Role large cap for sniping yet abaddon can do better amarr cruiser . Never apealed to me thay all see to share the same bonus nothing SPL about them, ****** MWD battleships, anything over 5km on a battleship is just silly, Battleships are bulky, and stiff, what do you expect something 115million mass. ****** Omni tanks atm after testing and playing with tanks and T2 projectiles, even Rainbow damage a omni tank can hold off 2 or 3 HIGH damage t2 tempests if the tanker knows what hes doing, and know how to fit what can be done about it... not a easy fix ****** CCP has done a great job with this game and will keep doing so so stop wining, thay know what there doing and will make us all happy and warm inside
****** my thoughts lasers should yield the highest posable dps with the posablity of having higher resists on armor tanks. hybrids are right where thay need to be Chunky. X) projectiles almost on the money.
mwd's just do the 20x penilty that will slow the nano phoons and domi's yet not hurt the ceptors from there roles. the Vega seems little fast but what do you expect its a SUPER stabber.
<-- goes to write more and went blank
I See Dead People !
|
Steppa
Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 15:25:00 -
[247]
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?
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 16:40:00 -
[248]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 20/02/2007 16:41:47 I define strategical as any movement/ploy that leads up to the battlefield. Once you commence battle its a tactical problem.
With the extra warfare goals coming soonish(tm) the ability to move around quickly will become more important.
The BS > all syndrome has been mentioned b4 in this thread, one of the big reasons for this ( after firepower ) is that there is little difference between moving a BS fleet or a fleet composed of smaller ships. What with jump lag, align speed etc.
|
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 17:17:00 -
[249]
Allow only 1 Istab, nanofibre & overdrive injector per ship - inties with 3 low slots could fit 1 of all 3 and suffer the least penalty, though would suffer some speed reduction - what it does stop is your nano battleship filling its low slots with speed increase modules - a typhoon would be limited to 1 of each of the above, leaving 4 slots that it has to do something else with.
|
DeODokktor
Caldari Dark Templars The Fonz Presidium
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 23:29:00 -
[250]
Some ships in game end up having 5% MORE cap when they fit a mwd (silly bonus's 4tw)....
So if you say the mwd is such a "huge" drain then It think those 3 (I think it's only 3, or is it just 2?) ships in game that lets you get 5+% cap when fitting a mwd should be modified EVER so slightly.
|
|
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 03:10:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Shayla Sh'inlux 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.
/signed
General problem is a NOS existense in the universe. But once it was present, it cannot be removed. Remember that when You kill a part of game, You kill a part of players. I was joined a half-year ago, playing and planning my career a months... But I cannot imagine how CCP can ruine my plans in a seconds. Now I looking a way to leave untouched. But I cannot see it. This game was touch me so strong. And it is a great pain to look at his death. You change game in a headless way, not checking any results of Your changes. More! You change game to help Yourself to play. You say that is untrue? Who can trust You once that happen? Only newbies after year or two, too lazy to read old blogs. You see a problem of nano-BS runned so fast? You made that problem! You have computers, data and time to check all possible combination of modules. Why You not do that simple task? Too busy playing game? I'm sure You are doing alot of work to make server software stable and fast, but remember: alfa-stage product can run a day, but falls, beta even runs a day, but requires restart, release can run a week or so. Production stable environment can run a while but need maintenance. Why EVE still in beta stage? May be You need a separate command to write completely new client, if Your "need for speed" is not "just words"? What is all that windows floating around, wasting CPU/GPU time to render it? Is a hangar, drone bay, cargo bay and station dock. All floating around until docking finished, then disappeared. Also for many other windows - too many flashes for one action. Is there any problem with items context meny? I think so. (Note that is a SAME Exeq, but called in a different way) Stupid bug? I think so... -- Best mining place here < |
Wizzkidy
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 09:27:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Tonto Auri General problem is a NOS existense in the universe. But once it was present, it cannot be removed. Remember that when You kill a part of game, You kill a part of players. I was joined a half-year ago, playing and planning my career a months... But I cannot imagine how CCP can ruine my plans in a seconds. Now I looking a way to leave untouched. But I cannot see it. This game was touch me so strong. And it is a great pain to look at his death. You change game in a headless way, not checking any results of Your changes. More! You change game to help Yourself to play. You say that is untrue? Who can trust You once that happen? Only newbies after year or two, too lazy to read old blogs. You see a problem of nano-BS runned so fast? You made that problem! You have computers, data and time to check all possible combination of modules. Why You not do that simple task? Too busy playing game? I'm sure You are doing alot of work to make server software stable and fast, but remember: alfa-stage product can run a day, but falls, beta even runs a day, but requires restart, release can run a week or so. Production stable environment can run a while but need maintenance. Why EVE still in beta stage? May be You need a separate command to write completely new client, if Your "need for speed" is not "just words"? What is all that windows floating around, wasting CPU/GPU time to render it? Is a hangar, drone bay, cargo bay and station dock. All floating around until docking finished, then disappeared. Also for many other windows - too many flashes for one action. Is there any problem with items context meny? I think so. (Note that is a SAME Exeq, but called in a different way) Stupid bug? I think so...
Whine Whine Whine. Get over it
|
Maeltstome
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 15:35:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Tuxford One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE.
I don't believe they actually pay you to think up this tripe.
I also don't believe that you seem to think its CCP who decide what the game is like - eve has developed because of its players, and of the 20-30k people who play every day, ive seen about 30-40 pro 'speed nerf posts' - thats a big minority, the vast majority of PVP'ers use speed tanking because its a viable alternative to the rather samey "tank or gank" gameplay that dictates alot of eve. Only carebears in belts really hate this cause they hate replacing their drakes. I'n pretty much every PVP gang you'll find a fast tackler or force recon capable of dealing with a nano-ship... it's only when caught on your own they pose a real threat, which is more down to people not paying attention to local/scanner.
Dont do to Eve what sony did to SWG, watch how the game evolves, dont just listen ones who take the time to whine on the fourms.
p.s. All of your supposed changes would compeltely kill interceptors - think about snake implants - they are the ones causing the Nano-BS craze to go nuts, not the microwarps.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 16:08:00 -
[254]
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.
|
Kawasukie Tashi
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 19:00:00 -
[255]
So you dont want people moving too fast, ok i have a idea for you. I feel the way ships move in eve is miss represented. Better physics could be used.
Larger ships should have a slower accelleration and decelleration gradient, and smaller ships a faster one.
Since speed is measured in m/s everything out of warp should be relative to the speed of light, thereby limmiting how fast any ship can move.
The result is that MWD and Boosters change your accelleration and decelleration gradient and not your max speed. So it still applies that faster objects are harder to hit.
Why do i suggest this? Because in space if you thrust in one direction long enough eventually you will be going "fast". It makes no sense why larger ships cant move, eventually, equally as fast as smaller ships in a weightless vacume.
As a result a battle still has merit, the good guys and bad guys just cant hit and run because others can follow just as easily.
|
Griegli Amuatir
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 03:40:00 -
[256]
If you nerf stabs or nanos at all battleships will move slower, but they will still be faster than frigs/ indys. We have ship class specific afterburners and class specific mwds, so what about ship class specific nanos/ I-stabs instead of fooling with the not- broken mwd?
Granted I don't have the experience of others who've posted already, but it seems to me that nerfing the mod itself just makes those characters and ship classes who depend on them even ~less~ able to fill their roles either solo or in a group.
One of the neatest things about Eve in my opinion is the fact that a 2 day old cov-ops pilot can be just as exciting to fly as a year old bs jockey- just for different reasons. Take away the speed (read: only) advantage for frigs and indies for the sake of slowing down battleships and you're left with a game thats boring to play (meaning you're useless in pvp) until you've paid for a subscription for five months. That doesn't sound like a very good way to get new subscribers.
Thanks for letting me put in my two cents, and apologies if this has already been said.
|
Maeltstome
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 05:27:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Aramendel Also, I kinda doubt that not being able to sustain a MWD at speeds over 8.5k to 9.5k will kill ceptors.
a claw (fastest basic ceptor, adn yes tihs setup is faster than teh crusader since the istab changes) with a t2 MWD and 4 best named i-stabs will travel at about 6-7k/s with nav 5 and accell 4 - the problem only arrises when you include rigs, snakes and faction items.
The basic principle itself is sound - a ceptor can hit 7k/s with NOTHING but speed mods on it, it cant tank that MWD for very long or even think about scramming for more than a few cycles... and rep's if you even fit one are compeltely unsuable if you want to try and stay remotely fast.
You can load your lows full of cap relay's, then stick on some speed rigs and some snakes - go faster than this and be able to tank the MWD and Scram. Thats where the problem comes in. Snakes and Rigs.
|
Corey Grim
FinFleet Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 12:15:00 -
[258]
Okay CCP kick tuxford out now before he damages the game more.
While extreme speed can be a problem there are ppl who have trained whole their eve-life to fly small fast ships like Dictor/Af/IC and really its part of their fighting tactic that they go fast web and nos screw things up for us pretty easily allready so why the hell u need to nerf fast frigates even more ? they arent vulnerable enough allready or what ?
Especially once again this nerf would hit matar first and hardest and it has quickly become the "trash of the universe" race. if u take our speed away whats left ?
I dont like to brag and i dont say this to brag but i have AF & IC & Interdictor lvl 5, and i fly only matar, so I ask you dear Tuxford whats left to me in this game if u take my only ace away ? My Latest Video
|
Ishana
Minmatar The Black Rabbits Fatal Persuasion
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 13:30:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Corey Grim Okay CCP kick tuxford out now before he damages the game more.
/signed QFT
Please fire tuxford and hire someone that actually plays the damn game (PvP not missions) and isn't a pompous ass who thinks he's always right even when he's plainly wrong. An IQ above 60 would help also. _________________________________________________________
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:43:00 -
[260]
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").
|
|
Dr Cron
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 21:05:00 -
[261]
How about you stop messing with crap and encourage people to use combat strategies like min recons to deal with the issue.
|
Maeltstome
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 23:27:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Dr Cron How about you stop messing with crap and encourage people to use combat strategies like min recons to deal with the issue.
Exactly - how many minmatar ships would you choose over another races for the same job? Finally minnie ships have a use that isn't secondary to another race.
|
Raneru
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 00:00:00 -
[263]
hmm, im in 2 minds about the speed nerf. Its a shame to see nanoships get nerfed, they were good fun. I suppose it depends how much they get nerfed. If I can still do 2.5km/sec in a hurricane / typhoon I will still be happy.
On the other hand if it is a big nerf but doesnt affect ceptors maybe we will see the return of ceptor gangs and fleets? That period was the most fun I had in the game.
Are you famous? Check Here! |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 11:15:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Maeltstome
Originally by: Dr Cron How about you stop messing with crap and encourage people to use combat strategies like min recons to deal with the issue.
Exactly - how many minmatar ships would you choose over another races for the same job? Finally minnie ships have a use that isn't secondary to another race.
at least 14, not counting ships that get counted twice due to being best at multipule roles. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Domalais
Equilibrium LLC United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 11:58:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Domalais on 23/02/2007 12:29:45 Disclaimer: This is not a thread to whinge about nanoships, inertia stabs, etc. This is merely a few ideas I had regarding balance of MWDs suggested by Tuxford. Please do not ruin my thread with whining.
MWD balance:
I think an important factor is being overlooked: mass. Some have mentioned having velocity be a factor in the use of MWD, such that it becomes harder/impossible to go over certain speeds. I think the better solution is for MWD cap usage to be a function of both mass and velocity.
(Cap need = (mass / some constant) * velocity + some constant)
Cycle time would need to be faster (5 seconds or so), and with each cycle your MWD would automatically adjust the cap needed for the next cycle. This would mean a couple things:
- Your first cycle of the MWD would take the least amount of cap, likely less than what it needs now. As you go faster and faster with each cycle, more cap is needed, until at max speed you take max cap. This works and may even benefit close range ships (Gallente) who rely upon the MWD to close range but aren't using the MWD to maintain high speed.
- Ships which naturally have a low mass would have a built-in cap advantage to using MWDs. This eliminates any possible "Minmatar nerf", and depending on balance could become a buff for Minmatar. Also naturally takes care of low cap for interceptors, vagabonds, stabbers, etc.
- On the flip side of the above, ships that aren't designed to be fast and agile due to their mass will naturally discourage MWD use. You can still use it, of course, but you'll pay more cap for it than another ship in your class will less mass.
- Tacklers aren't hit that bad, because while you're orbiting you aren't at/near max speed. Your cap would only be hit hardest in a flat out run. Should be balanced so that cap is easily sustainable for an appropriate tackling frig/cruiser.
- Side benefit - Everyone has had a period of time when they're awaiting the arrival of a target and they're all queued up and ready to go. Holding still w/ your velocity at 0, your MWD would take virtually no cap.
Pros
- Conceivably balances speed by only affecting one module
- Works across all sizes of ships and MWD without ruining any end of the spectrum.
- Doesn't prevent blasterthrons, autotempests, deimoses, etc. from doing what they need to do. Might be used to help them, in fact, if the start cycle MWD cost is lower.
- Doesn't require ship bonuses to be shuffled - speed ships already have low mass.
- Gives ships that are supposed to be fast advantages over those that are not - Minmatar buff?
Cons
- More server traffic? (asking for velocities/cap amounts)
- Amarr/Caldari nerf?
Weird stuff
- Inertia stabs would reduce cap use for MWDs - Seems OK with the right tweaks.
- Plates would increase cap use - Makes sense to me, but will hurt some setups.
- Mass penalties/bonuses on rigs - Needs more research.
- Things like snake implants, etc. would obviously need some tweaking so that they are still useful.
Overall I really do think this would work. I've tried my damnedest to think of a way to exploit it (sit at 0 m/s, go fast, slow back down right away?) but I don't see a way to do it. I also can't think of any conflicts/combos with other mods for strange results. Finally, I think with the right adjustments it wouldn't "nerf" Amarr or Caldari, or buff Gallente or Minmatar. Just encourage use of MWDs on ships designed for the role.
|
Leon 026
Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 19:13:00 -
[266]
Edited by: Leon 026 on 23/02/2007 19:09:31
Originally by: Aramendel
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").
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. -------
Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings |
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 01:15:00 -
[267]
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.
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. -- Best mining place here < |
Wolverine PL
Gallente ClanKillers Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 02:03:00 -
[268]
Those ideas about nerfing MWD are most stupid idea's I heard. Instead nerf nanofibers (increase stacking penelty) or something. but mwd and injector cant work together? WTF? try flying close range ship like megathron, dominix (not nos setup) etc. There's are other ways to nerf nano ships. Leave mwd as they are now.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 14:57:00 -
[269]
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.
|
Scordite
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 15:43:00 -
[270]
Just quoting myself from another thread because Goumindong asked me to:
".. the more I think of it, the more the laser cap use bonus annoys me. Not because I really think it's useless (if armor omnitanks weren't so common/effective it certainly wouldn't be), but more because it's the root of all amarr ship role problems.
So hard to make several ships of the same class varied compared to each other with only 1 bonus to work with."
----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead. |
|
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] |