EVE Search - The MWD nerf and Gallente Blaster ships

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The MWD nerf and Gallente Blaster ships

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:02:00 - [1] Edited by: Kehmor on 16/02/2007 13:59:25 So this is gona hurt I'm guessing. Not like blasterships have a whole lot of cap to spare anyway and they are far from being "overpowered" (not that I believe nanoships are either), but I guess it really depends which nerf they go with. The "can't use a cap injector while mwding" would be all right as blaster ships rarely have to leave their mwd on. The charges one would be annoying as my blaster ships always have ful cargos, but I guess I could live with it. Straight out increased cap ussage would suck majorly. Anyway... Discuss...
Hellraiza666 Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:06:00 - [2] This was first thing i thought when i read that blog, but stupid forums wouldnt sign me in to post it then ><. But ye, if they do that thing where cap booster cant be used at same time as an MWD, then blasterboats are screwed. I think they should give blasterboats a bonus, so that the cap usage of MWD stays similar to what it is now. Originally by: CYVOK ...Very Disappointed, I spent 2 years building a pile of ****. -CYVOK-
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:11:00 - [3] Originally by: Kehmor Edited by: Kehmor on 16/02/2007 13:59:25 So this is gona hurt I'm guessing. Not like blasterships have a whole lot of cap to spare anyway and they are far from being "overpowered" (not that I believe nanoships are either), but I guess it really depends which nerf they go with. The "can't use a cap injector while mwding" would be all right as blaster ships rarely have to leave their mwd on. The charges one would be annoying as my blaster ships always have ful cargos, but I guess I could live with it. Straight out increased cap ussage would suck majorly. Anyway... Discuss... The increased cap uisage would scale based on ship speed Unless you tried to take your blasterthron above 1.5-2km/s you wouldnt notice it at all. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Admiral Bosch	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:13:00 - [4] they could always increase the decrease of MWD cap use on gallente ships. exmp... 30% reduction of mwd cap needs per lvl of ship skill
DarkElf Caldari Veto. Academy	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:13:00 - [5] Originally by: Hellraiza666 This was first thing i thought when i read that blog, but stupid forums wouldnt sign me in to post it then ><. But ye, if they do that thing where cap booster cant be used at same time as an MWD, then blasterboats are screwed. not really. mwd on blaster ships is usually only used to reach ur target. if u need to cap inject before u've even reached ur target then ur either too far from ur target to start with or u need to improve ur navigation/cap skills DE
Riho Red Wrath Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:17:00 - [6] Originally by: Admiral Bosch they could always increase the decrease of MWD cap use on gallente ships. exmp... 30% reduction of mwd cap needs per lvl of ship skill thorax allredy has the boni. and its not bad but when they increase the mwd cap usage... its not only nerfing gallente ships but allso minni ships and some amarr ships and allso caldari ships that rare use MWD (ceptors) atm its allmost impossible to keep a scram + mwd running on most ceptors... that would nerf theyr usefulness to nothing :( Great being Gallente... aint it ? ----------------- <------ Hijack free space :) -----------------
Rule2k Fate.	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:18:00 - [7] Originally by: Admiral Bosch they could always increase the decrease of MWD cap use on gallente ships. exmp... 30% reduction of mwd cap needs per lvl of ship skill 25% or whatever it is on the thorax
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:22:00 - [8] No it wont hurt gallente. Cause gallente needs the MWD for a very short time until they reach target. Then it can be shut off. In fact will help gallente, cause the others will less likely being using MWD and trying to keep distance. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.16 14:24:00 - [9] Originally by: Riho Originally by: Admiral Bosch they could always increase the decrease of MWD cap use on gallente ships. exmp... 30% reduction of mwd cap needs per lvl of ship skill thorax allredy has the boni. and its not bad but when they increase the mwd cap usage... its not only nerfing gallente ships but allso minni ships and some amarr ships and allso caldari ships that rare use MWD (ceptors) atm its allmost impossible to keep a scram + mwd running on most ceptors... that would nerf theyr usefulness to nothing :( no.. because they will be flying with AB. that is the only module taht should be running all the time. MWD should NOT BE ONLINE PERMANENTLY! Its only for a very brief burst! If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Kehmor Caldari PAK	Posted - 2007.02.16 18:06:00 - [10] I'm actually looking forward to see how this effects inties, dog fighting will be fun again me thinks
Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.02.16 18:28:00 - [11] mmm intys will probably be the exception.. since they need mwd running all the time and such.. this is probably a 4km/s + nerf... since those are the ships with issues. --- Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Axxana	Posted - 2007.02.16 18:44:00 - [12] why has no one mentioned the obvious for getting out of hairy situations: if you notice the odds are against you a mwd is the only hope you have of getting out of scram range. MWD are NOT only used for approach on blaster boats.
Axxana	Posted - 2007.02.16 18:44:00 - [13] why has no one mentioned the obvious for getting out of hairy situations: if you notice the odds are against you a mwd is the only hope you have of getting out of scram range. MWD are NOT only used for approach on blaster boats.
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.16 18:50:00 - [14] Originally by: Axxana why has no one mentioned the obvious for getting out of hairy situations: if you notice the odds are against you a mwd is the only hope you have of getting out of scram range. MWD are NOT only used for approach on blaster boats. I think this is kinda the point. Ships that CAN mwd into range, fight, then run away at their leisure and with no risk seem to be viewed badly by ccp. sgb agrees. sgb
Eternal Fury Shadow Of The Light R i s e	Posted - 2007.02.16 18:52:00 - [15] I know the 100mnII MWD is listing a 50% shield penalty. That'll hurt Some Minmatar and caldari Pilots, but not really affect ammar or Gallente pilots. Eternal Fury Shadow Of The Light .SOL.
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:02:00 - [16] Edited by: madaluap on 16/02/2007 18:59:30 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Riho Originally by: Admiral Bosch they could always increase the decrease of MWD cap use on gallente ships. exmp... 30% reduction of mwd cap needs per lvl of ship skill thorax allredy has the boni. and its not bad but when they increase the mwd cap usage... its not only nerfing gallente ships but allso minni ships and some amarr ships and allso caldari ships that rare use MWD (ceptors) atm its allmost impossible to keep a scram + mwd running on most ceptors... that would nerf theyr usefulness to nothing :( no.. because they will be flying with AB. that is the only module taht should be running all the time. MWD should NOT BE ONLINE PERMANENTLY! Its only for a very brief burst! Wow i see loads off bull** in your posts. To say it in your words: INTIES SHOULD RUN MWD PERMANENTLY PERIOD. They are build for speed and keeping a mwd running on a inty is plain normal, a freaking T1 frig could do it 3 years ago and still can. Imagine my shortburst cruiser vs your UBER perma running ab inty: zooom,zooom, web, scram.. pew pew pooof and if you suck add a splatch. @ your other post: No it wont help, it just ***cap even faster and ammar are the great winners. They can use the uberoptimal combined with the permarunning, oh god, uber ab of doom. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:05:00 - [17] I doubt the increased cap usage with speed would have any real effect, given it will be aimed at things going several Km/sec, not a Blasterthron that realistically doesn't even hit 1km/sec in it's short dash to the target... ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
smallgreenblur Minmatar Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:16:00 - [18] Originally by: Gabriel Karade I doubt the increased cap usage with speed would have any real effect, given it will be aimed at things going several Km/sec, not a Blasterthron that realistically doesn't even hit 1km/sec in it's short dash to the target... Yay somebody gets it! sgb
Christopher Dalran	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:16:00 - [19] The goal of the MWD change is to make normal reasonable MWD speed cost the same ammount of cap as they currently do now but to penalize those people using MWD's to achieve 3km/s + on a battleship. Basically they want super high speed to be achievable but make it cost something (ie cap booster dependant or something). I'm assuming that a 1mn MWD would be able to produce speeds MUCH greater than a 100mn withought suffering from increased cap usage. The real question is can they play with the numbers and find values that achieve this. Trial and error will tell. Setting each MWD with a Maximun speed with no penalty and then having a % cap usage increase that ramps upwards as higher and higher speeds are achieved is in my oppinion the best way to solve the problem of super fast battleships that cannot be hit without penalizing all those ships that are intended to go fast or blaster ships that just use one mwd with no speed mods and a good tank. Another good option in my oppinion would be to give MWD's a cooldown timer so that they cannot be used constantly without flying at slower speeds for a period of time to allow the MWD to recharge. This presents the Unique oportunity to add the new heat factor to mwd's, you could say redirect power to the MWD to drastically reduce its recharge time allowing near constant usage but at the risk of blowing out your engines (perhaps reducing your max speed by a % until you can dock and make repairs to your engine). If we go this route MWD's would basically be a tool used to get in close fast or get distance fast, not something you can leave on and fly at super speeds using missiles that never take your speed into account. Blaster boats that rely on MWD's to get close and then cut them off would not be penalized if we go this route.
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:27:00 - [20] Don't worry about blasterboats, Tuxford flies gallente only and istab/mwd nerf won't affect blasterboats, much. Signature removed as it fails to comply with the rules. Also, please think of the epileptics :) -Ivan K
Tisanta Amarr Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:30:00 - [21] Originally by: Exiled One Don't worry about blasterboats, Tuxford flies gallente only and istab/mwd nerf won't affect blasterboats, much. ignore this post... as the postee is a complete ****head and should be baned from forums on account of the fact he has no intelligent comments to make. anyways back on topic.. gallente will be fine.. this will probably give thema boost anyways since they dont use speed so much.. more just bursts every so often between targets. --- Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Admiral Bosch	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:31:00 - [22] i meant the bonus to cap reduction should be increased so they don't get that much penalty from the speed/cap increse demand. I already know the thorax has it btw ;)
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:35:00 - [23] Originally by: Admiral Bosch i meant the bonus to cap reduction should be increased so they don't get that much penalty from the speed/cap increse demand. I already know the thorax has it btw ;) Tuxford won't touch the mwds. Hull upgrades will get nerfed, nothing more nothing less. Signature removed as it fails to comply with the rules. Also, please think of the epileptics :) -Ivan K
Isonkon Serikain Gallente Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:37:00 - [24] Originally by: Hellraiza666 This was first thing i thought when i read that blog, but stupid forums wouldnt sign me in to post it then ><. But ye, if they do that thing where cap booster cant be used at same time as an MWD, then blasterboats are screwed. I think they should give blasterboats a bonus, so that the cap usage of MWD stays similar to what it is now. This is so dumb... Couldn't they just increase cap usage when Inertia stabs are fitted? Or prevent cap boosters from being used when inertia stabs are fitted? Pity the fool
Jerick Ludhowe Internet Tough Guys Inc.	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:43:00 - [25] MWD are not the problem. The problem is that there are way too many speed increasing modules that do not have any stacking penalties. Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got"
Durethia Momentum. Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2007.02.16 22:16:00 - [26] Edited by: Durethia on 16/02/2007 22:20:41 I don't like Tuxfords solution regarding MWD. Gallente have long been required to use MWD, yet, not a single ship really holds a compensating bonus to MWD. The Thorax really doesn't get the bonus implied when using MWD. Other ships that NEED MWD, such as the Deimos... is hurting with agility and or base speed to begin with. Requiring charges. This is pathetic really. One of my tactics to use when trying to evade capture is to warp to a safe spot, bang on the MWD in the direction of NoWhere, and walk away as my Deimos cruises into nothingness, indefinately at a "reasonable" speed after a given point of time. Charges are furthermore pathetic, because any blaster setup requires MWD and every single time you need to shoot something (like a NPC rat) you will most often be required to run five or more consequtive MWD cycles just to get within range of each battleship, while you're attacking one of them, the other two are flying off in opposite directions. Regarding NPC hunting in Thorax/Deimos... each triple BS spawn in 0.0, from time you warp in to the time you clear the belt, the Deimos pilot on-average had to utilize 20-60 cycles of MWD. Blaster ships are so dependent on MWD, that the ONLY TIME YOU DO NOT USE THE MWD, is when you are in close orbit of a target. MWD is required for any distance between Point A and Point B. Bottom line for requiring charges. The Gallente pilots are required to use the MWD way too much to depend on charges. Doesn't matter how small you make them, how many can fit, you further decrease the usefulness and time in the field for Gallente ships. It's often bad enough to find ammo in the middle of nowhere... now we might have to worry about another necessity? If charges are required, I assert Gallente should not be required to need them on any Gallente ship. Boost nerf. Again, most Gallente ships with blaster setups, do not get sufficient boost on the MWD. Gallente ships generally have too small a base velocity. It's no secret, Gallente ships were long pre-nerfed ever since the first major MWD change way back before Exodus; when CCP decided on the ridiculous cap requirements and even more ridiculous powergrid requirements of MWD. Mind you, the only real reason for these changes was because of haulers or scorpions with 5 or more MWDs fitted. Not only did they implement logic to forbid fitting more than one AB/MWD, they simply didn't stop there and mucked with Powergrid and Cap requirements. Again, if a boost nerf is implemented, Gallente ships should not be effected at all. I think making any changes for the MWD is out of line, not only in regards to Gallente race (who absolutely requires HEAVY and SUSTAINED use of MWD) but of all races, especially Caldari who rarely fit MWDs due to it's ridiculous cap penalties. Most importantly, why are MWDs being looked at? Nanophoons are problematic not becuase of the MWD they are fitting, but because of the fixed bennies nanofibers/istabs give any ship. I once fitted a Diemos with 6 nanofibers... it was ridiculous and I used it to travel through a warzone unfit, for about 10 jumps to a location where I had plenty of modules to fit it. With 6 Nanofibers, the Deimos's base speed was greater than any Interceptor, so if I would have fit a MWD, or Gistii MWD the ship would have been totally ridiculous. Do NOT nerf MWD. We are begging CCP to UNERF the MWD. If you want to nerf ANYTHING regarding speed, ONLY LOOK AT HULL MODIFICATION MODULES. For the love of God. Tux, you still haven't given Gallente blaster boats reasonable speed/agility stats nor have you really implemented proper MWD bonus for the Thorax and Deimos. Just off of Gallente Cruiser lvl 5, the Thorax and Deimos, fitting an MWD should have NO CAP REDUCTION AT ALL, the cap penalty should be completely diminished. But it isn't, we still have less cap after fitting an MWD. Not to mention, we can't hit a reasonable speed quick enough to actually catch most target.
Leon 026 Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.02.17 04:41:00 - [27] An inty that isnt moving at those speeds, is a dead inty ------- Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.02.17 05:36:00 - [28] Originally by: Leon 026 Edited by: Leon 026 on 17/02/2007 05:25:16 Edited by: Leon 026 on 17/02/2007 05:24:45 An inty that isnt moving at those speeds, is a dead inty. That is why they are cheap
Marskalkur Amarr The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.02.17 05:42:00 - [29] What if using nanofibers/i-stabs would give a drawback to MWD speed? Atleast I don't think the problem are the MWD's. It's those nano/i-stab ships that fly around at ludicrous speed that are unbalanced.
Battlecheese Caldari Cheers Restaurant and Bar Coalition Of Empires	Posted - 2007.02.17 05:52:00 - [30] The tactical use of MWD modules, and the way they interact with speed/agility modules are completely seperate issues. If MWDs are fixed then the agility issues should subside.
Lothar Midhaven The Movement	Posted - 2007.02.17 05:55:00 - [31] Originally by: Christopher Dalran Setting each MWD with a Maximun speed with no penalty and then having a % cap usage increase that ramps upwards as higher and higher speeds are achieved is in my oppinion the best way to solve the problem of super fast battleships that cannot be hit without penalizing all those ships that are intended to go fast or blaster ships that just use one mwd with no speed mods and a good tank. This has to be one of the best sollutions i've read so far. Ofcourse it needs some tweaks, for instance. Each ships maximum speed have to be diffrent like they already are. With this sollution they atleast won't end up nerfing the wrong ships. What do we live for, if it is not to make life more difficult for each other.
Aston Gulliver Gallente Kudzu Collective	Posted - 2007.02.17 05:56:00 - [32] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kehmor Edited by: Kehmor on 16/02/2007 13:59:25 So this is gona hurt I'm guessing. Not like blasterships have a whole lot of cap to spare anyway and they are far from being "overpowered" (not that I believe nanoships are either), but I guess it really depends which nerf they go with. The "can't use a cap injector while mwding" would be all right as blaster ships rarely have to leave their mwd on. The charges one would be annoying as my blaster ships always have ful cargos, but I guess I could live with it. Straight out increased cap ussage would suck majorly. Anyway... Discuss... The increased cap uisage would scale based on ship speed Unless you tried to take your blasterthron above 1.5-2km/s you wouldnt notice it at all. Lets hope they go the route of increased cap useage as your max speed increases. All the other scenarios pretty much leave blaster boats out to dry: The worst idea I have heard so far is not allowing cap boosting while MWDing. Seriously? I think Raven pilots are secretly hoping that this is CCP's "solution".
Dragonrazor Amarr	Posted - 2007.02.17 06:00:00 - [33] Sigh... MWD nerf? Why? I don't get it... Thats like nerfing drones because Nos suck so much cap... ******************************************* "Stars Die... Empires fall... We are dust..." *******************************************
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2007.02.17 08:46:00 - [34] Originally by: Battlecheese The tactical use of MWD modules, and the way they interact with speed/agility modules are completely seperate issues. If MWDs are fixed then the agility issues should subside. Thats agreed. This here is the problem, a stacking penalty on said modules would be beneficial to such ships like inties that need the mods to fly as they should. Originally by: Battlecheese Originally by: Leon 026 Edited by: Leon 026 on 17/02/2007 05:25:16 Edited by: Leon 026 on 17/02/2007 05:24:45 An inty that isnt moving at those speeds, is a dead inty. That is why they are cheap They are cheap? Taranis at 20m? Crow at 25m? damn I would love to have a wallet at a size to cover that throw away ship. Lets see if my sig can survive this round of *****ing Funny, i'm still here - Petwraith There will be no survivors now that i'm around - Xorus pwnt - Immy!!!11
Kunming Outcasts	Posted - 2007.02.17 11:07:00 - [35] Blasterboats were hit with 5 nerfs since EVE went online which were not even aimed to nerf them. Dmg mod stacking nerf: Nothing was wrong with blasterboats fitting 4-5 mag stabs and charge in to destroy its target at point blank, the drawback was it had 0 tank... dmg mod stacking nerf was to stop gankageddons from wtfpwning anything from 60-70km (pulse lasers got a range nerf later on on top of this nerf) Dual MWD nerf: Again no complaints with blasterboats, the problem was the dual MWD raven of doom! MWD capacitor reduction nerf: Above MWD nerf wasnt enough to stop missile boats cruising at MWD speeds and spamming missiles at its opponents, so MWD now took 25% of ur capacitor.. To compensate blasterboats got a useless bonus of capacitor penalty reduction (mind that MWD is a mandatory module on blasterboats and u still get -6.35% cap at max lvl, wtf?) Cap consumption nerf: Tux wanted cap to take a more important role in combat and various cap consumption changes were made which meant high cap consuming setups like laser and blasterboats pulled the shorter stick once again! HP boosts: Blasterboats have a dmg-tank, which means you must put out enough dmg to kill your target before it puts out enough dmg to break u'r weak tank (alright, the concept got sorta changed with tanking blasterships like brutix and hyperion but still..). The HP boosts mean blasterboats need to put out more dmg than before and need more cap and a better tank, which is not the case.. blasterboats die rather easily with 1 or 2 NOS on them. Now back on topic which is the MWD nerf.. Tux fails to see that the problem doesnt lay with "MWD + I-stab + Nanos" but with "MWD + NOS + speedtank"! Seriously you gotta be an imbecile to not see this, nerf NOS and no one will moan about speedtanks. NOS is EW, give the ships that are meant to use NOS a bonus and nerf NOS severely so all those nano-phoon,domi,myri,whatever setups disappear. As said by other in this thread, nerfing MWD and i-stabs/nanos will seriously dmg minmatar ships which are meant to use hit and run tactics (vaga, jag etc) AND gallente blasterboats which already have a hard time getting in range, hoping they havent eaten up more than 50% of their cap once arrived. It will make the rokh the best blasterboat out there since it doesnt need MWD or moving at all, just fit blaster range rigs and dmg mods in lows with passive tank and your almost at pre castor gankageddon! As a personal note I seriously doubt that Tuxford knows what he is doing since he has failed so many, many times to see the consequences of the random changes he sees fit!.. Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
Sean Dillon Caldari LEGI0N	Posted - 2007.02.17 12:57:00 - [36] MWD nerf will give you more cap to run repairers.
Grytok	Posted - 2007.02.17 13:19:00 - [37] Edited by: Grytok on 17/02/2007 13:16:26 Leave MWD as it is, and give a more effective Bonus to the ships who need MWDs. The Thorax should have a Bonus of 7.5%/LvL so @ LvL5 the Penalty is obsolete. Reduce the Fitting-Cost to: 1MN = 10PG, 10MN = 100PG... If you want to stop a BS hitting those ridiculous speeds, then change the boni of the Modules. Inetria Stabilizer: 15% Inertia, -10% Structure HP Nanofibre: 10% Speedbonus, with stacking-penalty like Hardeners Overdrives: 15% Speedbonus and -10% Agility Problem solved! .
Constantinee Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.02.17 16:11:00 - [38] Like hellrazia said it will kill gallante bs's. I mean do you see how much cap a mwd uses. we have to mwd 30km to a target sometimes then turn on guns and sometimes we may even have to start our tank while we are mwding. if they do the cap booster cant be used at the same tme as a mwd then gallante are ruined. personally i think for each nano on a ship it sould take 2 seconds off a cap boooster rof and increase the amount the amount of cap boosters in a cargo hold by a substation yet reasonable amount. thus a 4 nano ship will ahve a heavy electro mech cap booster rof of 20 seconds with only 6 other 800's in the hold. thus making that nano ship worthless. for a while especially if they nerf the nos. Omerta Syndicate
Sionide Panzershrek	Posted - 2007.02.18 19:12:00 - [39] Odd that all these gallente people are now crying, but I have not heard one mention of matar ACC boats! If gallente ships get mwd boosts, then so should matar acc boats. Let's not make it one sided cause you all fly gallente. As for the mwd nerf, I hope CCP really gives this a think and not screw things up too badly.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.18 23:49:00 - [40] Originally by: Kunming HP boosts: Blasterboats have a dmg-tank, which means you must put out enough dmg to kill your target before it puts out enough dmg to break u'r weak tank (alright, the concept got sorta changed with tanking blasterships like brutix and hyperion but still..). The HP boosts mean blasterboats need to put out more dmg than before and need more cap and a better tank, which is not the case.. blasterboats die rather easily with 1 or 2 NOS on them. Every time you talk it shows you dont know much about the game. HP boosts increase the viability of short range setups. Every time there is an HP boost, it increases the viability of short range setups. Every time there is an HP reduction, it decreases the viability of short range setups. Why? Because the more HP you have, the more time after closing you have to remove the damage buffer that was imposed due to not having as much range as the target. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
hattifnatt Gallente The Movement	Posted - 2007.02.19 00:42:00 - [41] Why does every come with all these stupid ideas? Just nerf i-stabs! Originally by: Nicholas Barker i tackled somebody in the middle of nowhere, and told them i wouldn't leave untill they stripped on web cam. Who wants the video?
Lance Hawke New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2007.02.19 00:45:00 - [42] MWD's are fine.... just fix i-stabs. If CCP can't see that, then wtf?

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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