EVE Search - Why nerf MWD?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why nerf MWD?

» 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)
Kunming Outcasts	Posted - 2007.02.17 14:40:00 - [1] I still dont get the logic of the devs.. apparently to them it is the MWD that makes nano-BS setups uber.. the same MWD which has been around since Castor MWD changes (thats almost 3 years).. and now its supposed to become a problem? Sorry but even a blind hobo can see that the problem with nano-setups is their infinite sustainability. How can they do this, simply fit MWD and nanos, go fast and create cap out of the blue? NO, they fit alot of NOS and eliminate cap from the target while adding to their own, with no penalty whatsoever! SO lets compare the previous FOTM: NOS + ECM, to this months FOTM: NOS + Speedtank.. see a pattern here? ECM and Speedtank are what gain these setups (quasi-)invulnerability, but it is NOS which makes the invulneability infinetly sustainable. And what are the devs doing? Nerfing MWD, which has around a ton of penalties already.. anyone else think that CCP employees have been infected with a braincell eating bacteria? I suggest the devs to add penalties/limitations to NOS, or buy anti-bacterial tinfoil hats! Personaly IMO: The easiest solution would be to get rid of 'Tuxford' who seriously messed up pvp in EVE from the first day, imbalance and overpowered setups have never been so potent without him in charge, and the number of ships without a defined or useful role have never been so high. Tuxford is unable to forsee the consequences of his changes despite the community pointing at them on these forums. Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
rockswell Minmatar	Posted - 2007.02.17 14:47:00 - [2] I mostly agree, NOS needs a nerf. However nanoships mostly generate cap from using cap booster charges so Nosferatus aren't so important here :) http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2605/vagall2.jpg Signature dimensions exceeds max 400x120 dimensions allowed. Mail us if you have any questions -Eldo
Assassa Minmatar Fuels Of Armageddon	Posted - 2007.02.17 14:49:00 - [3] Sorry to say... not a solution either. Most nano don't rely only on NOS, but mostly in cap injectors.
Kunming Outcasts	Posted - 2007.02.17 14:59:00 - [4] Originally by: Assassa Sorry to say... not a solution either. Most nano don't rely only on NOS, but mostly in cap injectors. Yes, but cap injector charges run out, unlike NOS which has no drawback... Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
blood red	Posted - 2007.02.17 15:04:00 - [5] they wont nerf nos, it looks like they are planning to boost it for the amarr even.
Deitre Cibrus Defile.	Posted - 2007.02.17 15:04:00 - [6] nerf nos and give nano/istab a stacking penalty tbh ----------- Originally by: Santiago Cortes Please don't derail your own thread. What is this sig missing? Pretty colours? -Conuion Not true! Has plenty -Deitre
Assassa Minmatar Fuels Of Armageddon	Posted - 2007.02.17 15:06:00 - [7] Originally by: Kunming Originally by: Assassa Sorry to say... not a solution either. Most nano don't rely only on NOS, but mostly in cap injectors. Yes, but cap injector charges run out, unlike NOS which has no drawback... I'm not judging if they are better to use than NOS, i'm just stating what people are using when they nano their ship. They do not rely on NOS for 90% of the time. If you have a problem with NOS it has not much to do with MWD. Without denying NOS are used sometime in those ships, they are mostly used to sustain a tank, not for MWD.
Scordite	Posted - 2007.02.17 15:12:00 - [8] MWD, and thus insane speeds, are easily sustainable even without nos, especially when using capless weapons and no tank. However, you'd be hard pressed to kill anything but flat out gank setups with the dps of 4 torps and 5 heavy drones without draining the cap out of the target. Anyways, nos nerf IS coming. To be honest, I like the fact that they're taking their time with it, means they're considering factors such as still making it a viable defense for big ships against smaller ones, being careful to avoid near unbreakable tanks, and so on. ----------------------------------------------- The only legitimate use of the BLINK tag: Schr÷dinger's cat is [BLINK] not [/BLINK] dead.
Constantinee Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.02.17 16:05:00 - [9] i think that nanos themselves need to give les sof a speed boost and nos need a nerf. there is nothing wrong with the mwd's all that will happen is it will kill close range (blaster, ac) combat even more then it already has. snake prices will go up as a downfall to this aswell. Omerta Syndicate
Pepperami Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.17 16:13:00 - [10] Instead of cutting down ways to play, the solution should be more practical counters. From changes I have seen the last year or so, the aim for eve seems to be to have large gangs(not allowed too many people - no fleets!) facing off against each other, and neither should be able to pull any unexpected tactics or setups, and we both need to watch carefully our hitpoints drop slowly giving us ample time to warp out. [EVE TASK BAR?]
Forsch Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 16:50:00 - [11] Originally by: Kunming I still dont get the logic of the devs.. apparently to them it is the MWD that makes nano-BS setups uber.. the same MWD which has been around since Castor MWD changes (thats almost 3 years).. and now its supposed to become a problem? We didn't have inertia stabilizers that decrease mass back then. Decreasing mass has a different effect on max speed than adding base speed. Both together of course result in super fast speeds. Forsch Defender of the empire What have you done CCP..
Xoduse Gallente Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.02.17 17:22:00 - [12] All we have to do is give Nanos and I-stabs a stacking penalty. That way batteships and battlecruisers can't fill up all 5-8 lowslots with nanos and zoom around. After the 3rd module, they will be useless. ---------------------
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Maza Nostra RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 18:51:00 - [13] Originally by: Xoduse All we have to do is give Nanos and I-stabs a stacking penalty. That way batteships and battlecruisers can't fill up all 5-8 lowslots with nanos and zoom around. After the 3rd module, they will be useless. i-stabs allready have a stacking penalty i think a better solution would be: i-stabs: bonus: higher agility malus: higher sig nanos: bonus: less mass (but not that much of a reduction like now) malus: less hull hp overdrives: bonus: more speed malus: less cargo ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Dopefish Amarr Quad and Fish	Posted - 2007.02.17 19:19:00 - [14] Its rather obvious that ccp is without an employee that does ingame balance. Tuxford would probably do a great job if he was given time to work on balance exclusively, but since CCP are located on the polar icecap they probably have some issues with qualified personnel.
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.02.17 19:23:00 - [15] Edited by: Nyxus on 17/02/2007 19:21:03 Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte i-stabs allready have a stacking penalty i think a better solution would be: i-stabs: bonus: higher agility malus: higher sig nanos: bonus: less mass (but not that much of a reduction like now) malus: less hull hp overdrives: bonus: more speed malus: less cargo But the issue is the fact that nanos/istabs/overdrives effect several ship attributes that aren't stacking penalized against each other and all combine into 2 overall ship effects; Ship Speed & Maneuverability that turns battleships into something that handles like a frigate. If you don't want them to combine to form the Captain Planet of pwnmobiles you need to give them penalties that counteract each other. Istabs - Higher agility, lower base speed Nanos - Less mass, lower mwd speed Overdrives - Higher speed, lower agility. These would still be good, but you would have to choose what you wanted to do. Warp out quick but not fly as fast. Faster speed to get away but less maneuverable. These are the types of offsets that foster balance, rather than the multiple attributes mods that build multiplicatively off one antoher. Current implementation of speed mods would be similar to introducing individual rof mods, damage mods, drone damage mods as well as rigs that did the same thing but didn't stack against one another or mods but all bonused overall DPS. Fun, but ultimately unbalanced when ships are doing 9000 DPS. I am glad to hear that it's being fixed, I just hope MWDs don't get hit to hard in the process. Nyxus The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Maza Nostra RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 19:44:00 - [16] i stand corrected ... maybe not the best idea i had ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Antares Andaris	Posted - 2007.02.17 19:48:00 - [17] There is just one reason why nano ships are imba: SNAKE IMPLANT SET
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Maza Nostra RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:12:00 - [18] Originally by: Antares Andaris There is just one reason why nano ships are imba: SNAKE IMPLANT SET well .. let's take a look at this nano-FOTM since when are such setups in common use? (and i'm not talking about the odd nanophoon pilot a few months ago) well .. since kali .. and what happened in kali? did the ships get a higher basespeed? nope were MWDs changed? nope were implants changed? nope was NOS changed? nope (though the HP & cap changes might have changed it relevance in "normal" setups) well - what changed then? inertia stabilizers ... and here you got the thing that needs imho some balancing (since pre-kali the overall picture was quite balanced - atleast better than now) ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:18:00 - [19] Well unless you have a short memory, the mwd is not intended to be a combat module, but of course its used as one because its benefits still are greater than the drawbacks in combat ships. ABs could use a slight buff, maybe 150% for t1, 180% for t2. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Helferin Gallente Bookmarkers on weed	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:25:00 - [20] im playing since 4 weeks now, and ive been pvpin a lot in my rifter and in my rupture, and i got owned by a nano vexor and a nano crow and wtf... u ever seen a post where i have whined? NO u havent, because it is great like it is, im gonna tell you something, nothing needs a nerf, why? because all those guys whining about mwd and i-stab/nano combo prolly just lost a ship to a nano ship, lol pwnt would i say u duchebags, i mean wtf? every ships has its counter part and u havent had that counter part fitted on this ship so HAHA pwnt!!!! ... but you could aswell take a banana, a parking place and some random jewellery and put the thing in da mixer! ..
Stutka Driver Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:27:00 - [21] This topic doesn't particulary agitate me, but I'll forward an idea that entertains me. How about making these modules more race specific. I.E. Overdrives work well for Minmatar, Nanofibers work well for Amarr, and Gyro's work well for Caldari and Gallante. The idea being that these modules would fit on any ship, they just wouldn't be as effective on every race's ships, kind of like the weapons balance. Easiest way I suppose would be to make the modules themselves very ineffective but attribute racial ship bonuses that make them so. There you go, that's my stab at a solution, one of flavor.
Hamatitio Caldari Fate.	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:33:00 - [22] Originally by: Helferin im playing since 4 weeks now, and ive been pvpin a lot in my rifter and in my rupture, and i got owned by a nano vexor and a nano crow and wtf... u ever seen a post where i have whined? NO u havent, because it is great like it is, im gonna tell you something, nothing needs a nerf, why? because all those guys whining about mwd and i-stab/nano combo prolly just lost a ship to a nano ship, lol pwnt would i say u duchebags, i mean wtf? every ships has its counter part and u havent had that counter part fitted on this ship so HAHA pwnt!!!! And your 4 weeks of experience is the determining factor of balance? You haven't been around long enough to see eve without them. Back on topic though, I hope its handled in such a way that keeps minmatar usable... 2007.02.10 22:14 Training of the skill Minmatar Cruiser to level 5 has been completed.
Mortuus Minmatar Just-fun Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:44:00 - [23] The problem is that if they nerf MWDs, small ships will go slower, and be a lot easier to catch as well as the big ones. I'd hate to see small ships become useless because without a MWD you can't get to the target fast enough, or maintain enough speed to avoid getting plastered. Especially with Nos and web drones out there. ex-Occassus Republica <3
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.17 20:47:00 - [24] Originally by: Helferin im playing since 4 weeks now, and ive been pvpin a lot in my rifter and in my rupture, and i got owned by a nano vexor and a nano crow and wtf... u ever seen a post where i have whined? NO u havent, because it is great like it is, im gonna tell you something, nothing needs a nerf, why? because all those guys whining about mwd and i-stab/nano combo prolly just lost a ship to a nano ship, lol pwnt would i say u duchebags, i mean wtf? every ships has its counter part and u havent had that counter part fitted on this ship so HAHA pwnt!!!! And what is that counter? Billions of ISK for your very own nanoBS? Or a t2 ship that is marginally useful at killing NanoBS? _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Falcun Gallente North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Thor Xian Well unless you have a short memory, the mwd is not intended to be a combat module Which is why the thorax, deimos, and vigilant all have bonuses to mwd....
FooB2 Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:19:00 - [26] Edited by: FooB2 on 17/02/2007 22:18:53 fix istabs? make them midslot/active. ta-daaaa EDIT from the RP (explanation) POV, they are essentially meant to be, lets say, "mini MWDs/engines" that intially stabilzed the ships orbit. hence, they could be construed now as a speed mod, just like an afterburner or normal MWD. Signature removed, please avoid using images involving relgious symbols like that. -Ivan K
Taram Caldar Acheron Vanguard Armada The Makhai	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:26:00 - [27] Simple Fix: Give Istabs a scaling penalty to speed based on the ship's size. Set it up so that Interceptors, Frigates and possibly Destroyers aren't too horribly penalized but Cruiser+ get a significant reduction to base speed. This would eliminate the problem quite effectively. Example: Frigs are 2,500m3. So make the penalty something like 0.025% of volume of the ship is reduced from ship speed. When you get up to cruisers (10,000m3) that's 50m/s chopped off the ship's max speed per istab fitted. Quick math... 2,500m3 ships would get a penalty of about 6.25m/s per ISTAB 5,000m3 ships would get a penalty of about 12.5m/s per Istab 10,000m3 ships would get a penalty of about 25m/s per Istab etc... Stabbed small ships would still MWD a lot faster but larger ships (especially BC+) would not. This would allow smaller ships to continue fitting them to increase survivability without making them godmobiles while larger ships wouldn't want to fit them as they don't give any real benefit to the largest ships. Alternatively just lock it so istabs can only be fitted on ships with less than 7500m3 volume. (Destroyers, Frigs, Assault Frigs and Inties)
Venkhar Krard	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:30:00 - [28] Nah its just the normal ccp way of fixing things. They tell us they see the problem and come witch a change that has nothing to do with it ;] The problem is - Nano-battleships and Istabs. MWD works perfectly fine and is balanced for all ship classes. Just change the way nanofibers and Istabs affect speed and agility. And make them less usefeull for bigger ships - Bses.
kisu tei	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:33:00 - [29] i would like to see MWD nerfed to hell for any race other than gallente blaster boats i would make MWD have a 250% bonus to speed. and give the following ships a free bonus of 50% to MWD speed boost per level. thorax/demios/vigalante, megathron, hyperon, all frigates(all races all tech varents) omen(possibly zeleot too)(suposed to be a fast vangard ship right). MWD are not ment for actual combat except to get the nose of your vessal to contact with the enemy before activating blasters and dual webbers.(gallente style tactica 1.) my 2 isk
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:42:00 - [30] Originally by: Falcun Originally by: Thor Xian Well unless you have a short memory, the mwd is not intended to be a combat module Which is why the thorax, deimos, and vigilant all have bonuses to mwd.... I vaguely recall this thing about rules having exceptions. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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

[EVE TASK BAR?]