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)
Yarek Balear The Initiative	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:47:00 - [31] Edited by: Yarek Balear on 17/02/2007 22:44:14 TBH I think there has been a bit of a community over-reaction to the MWD changes proposed in Tux's dev blog. I fly gallente blasterships quite a bit and believe me I don't want to see them nerfed to death and incapable of using their modules, but please consider the statements actually made in the blog before diving off the board into the pool to join the whiners... "I like making cap consumption of microwarpdrive dependant on velocity because it can be done so that it only affects ships going really, really fast." This statement says that an MWD that puts a Megathron into ~600m/s isn't going to cause a lot of problems, but it will cause a lot of cap problems for a ship that's being propelled to 13km/s like some interceptor fittings and some of the high-end i-stab/nano BS fittings. I don't necessarily consider that it will definitely cause blasterships a problem, but it might cause problems for people that want to sustain rediculous speeds (even if they can still reach them for short periods). I think this is what Tux was suggesting as part of the blog and I think the reaction from the community on what is being tried out is rediculous. Suggestions that these guys have no idea what they're doing because they're testing things you don't like is a complete falacy - the counter argument being that if they didn't test other possibilities then they would be short sighted and blinkered in their approach. I'll be the first to whine when my megathron needs to fit 3 cap power relays and 2 cap injectors in order to close a target in a belt, but I honestly don't believe that is going to happen with what is suggested... Rant over.
KiIIFace	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:53:00 - [32] Originally by: kisu tei I have no idea what the hell I am talking about so I will flail my lips wildly and ululate some random phrases of nerfing something that is absolutely fine and ignore the actual problem while boosting only my favored ship class. Fixed.
Venkhar Krard	Posted - 2007.02.17 22:53:00 - [33] Originally by: kisu tei i would like to see MWD nerfed to hell for any race other than gallente blaster boats Yeah, great idea. Cause Minmatar Ac boats are so overpowered, they dont need to come in weapon range.. Each race has close range ships and they will be crap without mwd.
FooB2 Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.18 00:47:00 - [34] Originally by: Thor Xian 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. and interceptors go 3km/s with base speed do they? Signature removed, please avoid using images involving relgious symbols like that. -Ivan K
Shaemell Buttleson Darwin With Attitude	Posted - 2007.02.18 02:48:00 - [35] I quite like the idea of the MWD changes mentioned. I sometimes fly nanophoons but with the effect of other factors like snake sets and rigs etc I do feel they are overpowered. It won't happen when it is changed but I would however like the cap penalty removed from fitting them in the first place though. I have allways thought it was excessive but wouldn't care too much if it used more cap whilst in operation.
Kunming Outcasts	Posted - 2007.02.18 03:19:00 - [36] Originally by: Forsch 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. And why is this a reason to nerf MWD? There are 3 elements that make nano-setups: - Nanos/I-stabs which dont have stacking penalty - NOS which has no drawback whatsoever - Rigs And the devs go nerf MWD which has already tons of limitations and drawbacks.. Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
Shaemell Buttleson Darwin With Attitude	Posted - 2007.02.18 04:48:00 - [37] Edited by: Shaemell Buttleson on 18/02/2007 04:45:42
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations	Posted - 2007.02.18 07:00:00 - [38] 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.... And the vindicator and daredevil....... 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
Thor Xian Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation	Posted - 2007.02.18 09:22:00 - [39] Originally by: FooB2 Originally by: Thor Xian 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. and interceptors go 3km/s with base speed do they? and interceptors need to go 3 km/s do they? _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Material Defender Got Corp?
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.18 09:59:00 - [40] Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: FooB2 Originally by: Thor Xian 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. and interceptors go 3km/s with base speed do they? and interceptors need to go 3 km/s do they? Nobody is ever going to non-consentually die again otherwise, and 3km/s is hilariously slow with current gunranges. Essentially, toning down current Interceptor and Interdictor speeds is only wise if we're slashing sniping ranges drastically as well. And Doomsday range while we're at it. Otherwise you're just shifting to no-risk consentual combat, which is already more or less where EvE is headed once bumping isn't viable anymore. Having one expensive, fragile ship to force engagements that's annoying to catch but far from difficult to kill in an engagement is miles better than playing endless disengagement games. But call me crazy, liking the whole high-stakes aggressiveness deal.
Ernest Graefenberg Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.18 10:06:00 - [41] Originally by: Pepperami 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. Yeah, I like the part where we're trying to fix massive focusfire but clearly non-linear damage reduction via evasion is out of the question. That would make some kind of crazy-ass sense. Slowly declining bars is much more fun.
Lucy Light	Posted - 2007.02.18 10:38:00 - [42] bah stop trying to nerf nos and mwd. they work fine just the way they do. on the contrary, nerf the effect of the speed modules, (which is currently next to nothing) and allow a battleship to fly at 8k per sec.
FooB2 Caldari Northern Intelligence SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.02.18 11:18:00 - [43] Originally by: Thor Xian Originally by: FooB2 Originally by: Thor Xian 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. and interceptors go 3km/s with base speed do they? and interceptors need to go 3 km/s do they? what the hell are you talking about? do you even know what the primary role of interceptors ARE? usually the first ship to arrive and get a lock in the fight, entrusted with keeping the target there so everyone else can arrive, lock and kill it. it has to be able to move into the operation range within seconds or the target just warps off. is it possible to reduce 40km to 20km @ 500m/s before anything warps off? hmm...... Signature removed, please avoid using images involving relgious symbols like that. -Ivan K
Car Wars Aliastra	Posted - 2007.02.18 11:59:00 - [44] Edited by: Car Wars on 18/02/2007 11:57:49 Edited by: Car Wars on 18/02/2007 11:57:03 Edited by: Car Wars on 18/02/2007 11:56:31 imho the i-stab is totally overpowered, not the mwd. Looking at the physics behind the i-stabs it strikes me as strange that a mass reduction comes at no significant penalty. Pre-kali it was an agility penalty if im correct and thats why it wasnt used.An i-stab should at least nerf all the hp, structure, armor and shields to obtain the massreduction. This makes ships thinfoil but doesnot really help us. The i-stab should thus maybe be an energized module which takes a lot of energy to "maintain ship integrity" . Biggest problem with the i-stab is that it is a percentage bonus hence it makes BS uber. Make it an absolute bonus. The proposed mwd nerf by tuxford is far from physics in space, but looks like he is looking at cars in RL. It takes a lot of energy to keep a great mass at constant high speed because of air friction. We dont have that in space.... In space it would take energy to propel a ship to a certain speed(acceleration). At a contstant speed it takes near nothing because their is no opposing force (vacuum). To slow down it would require energy!!!! lets see them bring this into the game, lol. For the record i am a blasterthron pilot and like flying inties at insane speeds, they dont need nerfing.
Dylatar Gallente	Posted - 2007.02.18 12:51:00 - [45] Well, here is much discussion, but the simpliest way was not mentioned for now. Just split the passives spee dmodules up in different sizes. Convert the Nanofibers I into Small Nanofibers I, create new medium and large as well. Larger modules can't be fitted on smaller ships, smaller can be fitted on larger ships but will have nearly no effect (like using 1 MN AB on a BS). Then the speed bonus and its disadvantages can be given on these modules to reflect the proper ship classes.

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.