| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
   |
Posted - 2007.11.20 04:54:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
New dev blog on scripted modules here.
Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all.
My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible.
They claim that on Sisi it should be *already* the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed.
The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ.
Liang
--
Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 05:34:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
Originally by: Liang Nuren
They claim that on Sisi it should be *already* the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed.
The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ.
Liang
Hence the qualifier, "suggests". The math described in the dev blog is a major departue from how things currently work for calculating damper strength. Hopefully this a result of SiSi module stats being changed before the associated code was updated. (I refuse to give odds on this, however.)
If they're planning on all this coming out in Trinity, that's actually quite likely.
Liang
--
Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 18:41:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57
Originally by: Minas Reul
Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea.
I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die.
Quote from another post of mine:
Quote:
4. Rework the Ewar system so that there is a single strong form of ewar (ECM). This lets people feel more comfortable fitting a counter to "all ewar".
*snipped*
With respect to point 4, let's face it: it's no fun to sit there and never shoot back. This is what ewar does - it makes you just die, and it ****es lots of people off. But, what's the practical difference between having an ewar tank and a OMGWTFUBER tank? Well, the only real difference is that you could choose to shoot someone else with wtf tank, and ewar prevents that.
Ewar is "no fun" to the bruiser pilots, so they're nerfing it - by nerfing variety. At least, this is my opinion.
For supporting evidence, CCP Zulupark says that "for parity, it just doesn't make sense not to script Tracking Disruptors", and "We've looked at the modules on Sisi and we feel that they are balanced correctly now".
CCP feels that TD's and Damps are *fine* at this point - when obviously with a Curse/Pilgrim/Arazu/Lachesis you won't even be able to completely lock down a single ship of the appropriate type.
OTOH, the Falcon/Rook/Scorpion are locking down 3-4 ships regularly (this is where they should have been all along, tbqfh though).
Liang
Ed: Screwed up the quote boxes
--
Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.12.11 01:00:00 -
[4]
Guys, seriously, the answer here is Caldari Cruiser 5.
Deal with it (I did).
-Liang
--
Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU.
Yarr? |
| |
|