| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One
   |
Posted - 2008.01.08 01:32:00 -
[1]
First, a fundamental change to Webifier mechanics:
Decrease the Velocity Modifier by a linear 30%:
75% webs become 45% webs, 90% webs become 60% webs, and so on.
Add a mass modifier of 50% (mass is cut in half), which will drastically reduce a nano ships inertia (ability to escape web range while webbed).
The idea isn't to irrevocably crush the webbed target with an overpowered counter, but rather to provide the 'anti-mwd'.
As for the Amarrians. Cut 40% off the cap use of all lasers. Change the 10% laser cap use bonus to a 20% web optimal bonus (10 km web becomes 20 km web at BS5, Domination becomes 30 km).
Amarr ships wont be overpowered simply because they dont have a plethora of mid slots to be overpowered with. The geddon for example will still only be able to fit one web in a standard fit, the apoc might get away with two, and the abbadon wont even get a bonus to them.
Thoughts?
 Originally by: CCP Oveur
The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 01:36:00 -
[2]
No. It's been suggested a dozen times, and web range bonuses are extremely powerful. Extremely - even without the nano ships that you're trying to counter.
-Liang
--
Originally by: "QProQ"
When they said to put 'stabs on your 'cane, they meant GYROSTABS!
|
Anubis Xian
Vertigo One
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 01:38:00 -
[3]
Even with the suggested change to webs?
Sure it would hurt nano ships most, but traditional ships would be less impacted, and small ships would be better off in general.
Originally by: CCP Oveur
The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 01:50:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 08/01/2008 01:50:29
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Even with the suggested change to webs?
Sure it would hurt nano ships most, but traditional ships would be less impacted, and small ships would be better off in general.
I know you're all fired up over your new idea, but TBH I don't have the energy to argue with you. Suffice it to say that a web range bonus that extends to warp disruptor range is exceptionally powerful. In fact, a web range bonus (even with "nerfed" webs) would quite possibly be the biggest bonus in the game to a combat geared ship.
Also, a 40% decrease in capacitor use is probably too much, but I'm inclined to agree with the removal of cap usage in favor of something else (while simultaneously lowering cap use overall).
-Liang
Ed: I forgot to mention that smaller ships would be wtfbbq'd at any range they cared to fly at. I don't know how you justify thinking they'd be "better off".... wtf?
--
Originally by: "QProQ"
When they said to put 'stabs on your 'cane, they meant GYROSTABS!
|
L70Rogue
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 01:54:00 -
[5]
/signed
and inertia should be increased on all HACs by 200%
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 01:57:00 -
[6]
Originally by: L70Rogue
/signed
and inertia should be increased on all HACs by 200%
Do you intentionally look for ways to make sure that nothing smaller than a battlecruiser is ever flown? Just asking.
-Liang
--
Originally by: "QProQ"
When they said to put 'stabs on your 'cane, they meant GYROSTABS!
|
MenanceWhite
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 02:22:00 -
[7]
Altough cap for lasers is nice, amarr is'nt "broken" because of only it.
It's mostly the old ships (omen, maller, apoc, that bc that's not harb) that could need some rehaul. Mainly so that they can fit things but maybe also the cap. I'd be fine even if cap is'nt changed-
old gank or tank was nice. But atm you can't really do either with those ships.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 02:23:00 -
[8]
A 50% mass reduction means that ships will travel roughly twice as fast and be twice as agile.
|
MenanceWhite
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 02:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Goumindong
A 50% mass reduction means that ships will travel roughly twice as fast and be twice as agile.
But you eventually did understand that he meant "reduction" as in "penalty" as in "increased mass", right? Then why bother posting?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 03:12:00 -
[10]
Originally by: MenanceWhite
Originally by: Goumindong
A 50% mass reduction means that ships will travel roughly twice as fast and be twice as agile.
But you eventually did understand that he meant "reduction" as in "penalty" as in "increased mass", right? Then why bother posting?
Originally by: the OP
Add a mass modifier of 50% (mass is cut in half), which will drastically reduce a nano ships inertia (ability to escape web range while webbed).
|
Phoenicia
Black Sea Industries
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 05:15:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I know you're all fired up over your new idea, but TBH I don't have the energy to argue with you.
No one's forcing you to post. I'm not usually one to tell people to "stop posting", but that just comes off as arrogant and/or silly.
In regards to web range bonus; no. Dropping the cap use bonus along with the laser cap reduction would be a good plan though. Imo.
Originally by: Orebuster
I thought EVE was about self determination and responsibility.
|
Arkanjuca
Caldari
Tropa de Elite
The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 05:49:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I know you're all fired up over your new idea, but TBH I don't have the energy to argue with you.
how rude of you 
to the OP: Generaly i think thats the wrong way to go with amarr and the nano problem. Both need some tweak and you're free to suggest anything you want.
--
"Strike first, strike fast and strike hard..."
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
Knights Of Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 06:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Arkanjuca
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I know you're all fired up over your new idea, but TBH I don't have the energy to argue with you.
how rude of you
to the OP: Generaly i think thats the wrong way to go with amarr and the nano problem. Both need some tweak and you're free to suggest anything you want.
It was unintentional rudeness. I beg forgiveness, but I do reserve the right to say something is a bad idea with marginal explanation of reasoning.
At any rate, it should be truly obvious why it's a WTFBBQIMBA idea.
-Liang
-Liang
--
Originally by: "QProQ"
When they said to put 'stabs on your 'cane, they meant GYROSTABS!
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 07:40:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 08/01/2008 07:40:44
Originally by: Liang Nuren
No. It's been suggested a dozen times, and web range bonuses are extremely powerful. Extremely - even without the nano ships that you're trying to counter.
-Liang
Eventhough Im usually the one that yells boost-amarr the loudest Im gonna have to agree. This would totally kill interceptors (wich are not a problem) and basically make big ships pwn everything.
Lasers need a fix, agreed.
---------------------------------------------
[Video]The Inquisition I - Swift Justice |
Sedai Hara
The Forsakened Companions
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 09:40:00 -
[15]
Ok lets see:
cut laser cap-use by 30-40% - great idea and should be done
remove laser cap bonus for a "usefull" bonus - ok if the above one os done this must also happen
give the ships with the longest shortrange wepaons with great DPS a bonus to webbers to totally hold down the enemy from come in close (dead megathron) AND at the same time kill of all small ship warfare AND make tacklers like interceptors and minmatar recons useless? - not the very best of ideas, good try though.
I dont know what bonus to throw into that empty bonus slot, but EW is out of question, maybe a fitting bonus / cap ammount bonus on all of them? would boost their intended use of "fire for a long time + tank for a long time and be ood at it in fleet battles" idea that RP wants them to do.
-----------------------------
Originally by: Ozzie Asrail
A mega without 3 magstabs fitted is like kladdkaka without chocolate. 
|
Dheorl
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 10:56:00 -
[16]
Stick those 2 into the game and you end up with amarr ships that could beat pretty much anything in their class 1 on 1.
|
Grif Oberwald
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 12:30:00 -
[17]
Why not just replace the laser cap bonus with the web bonus on the Marauders - +2% flat per level, allowing Amarr ships to at least be able to use their range advantage a bit before the blaster boats get in range and destroys them.
|
Mark Lucius
The Vinlanders
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 13:02:00 -
[18]
What about an afterburner bonus instead of that cap-usage 'bonus'?
Remove the cap-usage bonus and add the reduction standard to Amarr ships. That bonus could then be replaced by a 10% bonus per level to afterburner velocity increase.
Right now MWDs are basically mandatory since their speed increase is so high that their penalty is no real argument anymore. This penalty (-25% cap capacity) is rather killing for certain Amarr ships. The suggested bonus might make afterburners viable again, although +185% at level 5 with Afterburner IIs still seems a little low.
---
|
Andreask14
Alterum - Infinitus - Fabula
Dragons Of Oceans
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 13:41:00 -
[19]
Nerfing webbers for everybody but certain amarrian ships is a no no.
Making webber reach further than 15 km on a whole line of ships is effectively killing off any small ship combat.
Instead, just remove the cap use bonus and add a ship specific bonus to the TURRETS.
Examples:
5% more tracking per level for geddon
5% more optimal per level for apoc
badon remains unchanged
Tracking for omen, range for maller, damage for prophecy
And lastly, to balance all these awesome boni, you d not reduce laser cap use by 50% flat, but only by 25%. Easy.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 13:53:00 -
[20]
First off the amarr laser cap reduction bonus is a "role bonus" to promote the use of lasers on amarr ships over other weapon types. If it is removed it should be because the issue is solved in a better way (because the role bonus solves more than just 1 issue) and should not be replaced by another bonus that actually makes the ships stronger (screwing over balance against the other races)
Regarding the velocity Im not sure the problem will be solved by your suggestion. Some ships are provokingly fast, but in general the latest implementations have balanced the game somehow well.
Im sure the last tweaks will have to be done by individually looking at ships. And maybe take a look at some of the factors involved
-
I'm a nice guy!!
But hook me up with some pew pew, because I'm really bored... |
Prometheus Exenthal
Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 15:06:00 -
[21]
counter nanos by training thermodynamics 
-
|
Maeltstome
Minmatar
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.01.08 18:17:00 -
[22]
nano ships are dead - stop excavating them with these threads.
-------
[12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5
[12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |