| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DarkRift
   |
Posted - 2003.06.12 21:16:00 -
[1]
The micro warp drive available now is far too unbalancing without a comparable module for frigates. It virtually eliminates the speed advantage that frigates should have over larger vessels (and seen in base ship stats). I propose adding another module, call it a nano warp drive, that can be mounted on frigate class ships. Check the average stats for both cruisers and frigates listed below. Also shown is the fittng for the current MWD and afterburner. The last column shows the fitting for the new nano warp drive(NWD).
.......Cruisers..Frigates..MWD......AB......NWD
CPU....290.......130.......75..........25......35
Power..675.......25........50..........8.......10
Speed..160.......275.......700%.....25%.....300%
Cap....785.......170.......60/2.5s..20/10s..35/2s
The stats for the NWD are generally based on the ratios between cruisers and frigates. The power was upped to 10 to make it higher requirements than a standard AB.
Compared to a standard AB, the NWD is 24% lower in speed increase per cap per second (skills accounted for). The AB can also last 776% longer (85s) than a NWD (9.7s) on a frigate (no cap recharge). The MWD could last 32.7s on a cruiser. A NWD on a cruiser would last 44.9s.
The NWD would not be too attractive to put two on a cruiser versus a single MWD. You would gain 10 CPU and 30 Power and you would lose 12% in speed per cap per second and you would lose an extra medium slot if you were to fit two NWD's instead of one MWD.
This new module would allow frigates to remain viable in terms of speed when compared to cruisers. A MWD is virtually standard equipment on cruisers now since this module is so unbalanced. Obviously another module would be needed for battleships to balance with the MWD on cruisers.
Stats edited for slightly better balance.
Edited by: DarkRift on 13/06/2003 07:11:11
|
Aisha Veneficusa
|
Posted - 2003.06.12 21:44:00 -
[2]
Personally, and I may be alone in this, I think the answer is *less* MWDs, not *more*.
|
Sceriv
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 06:12:00 -
[3]
First, I agree with Aisha-- less is more in this case. And also, NWD's as you describe them, WOULD be nice for cruisers. They don't take a huge chunk of grid and cpu, and are signifigantly better than ab's. Especially if you're not in a pitched battle, the cap recharge is enough to handle these suckers fine.
Basically, your idea isn't balanced.
|
DarkRift
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 06:56:00 -
[4]
Well I agree, I would rather have the MWD removed since afterburners already exist. However, MWD's are nice to have and it would cause one hell of an uproar if you took them out. My problem with them is that you lose any percieved speed bonuses by using a frigate over a cruiser.
Since a NWD could be mounted on a frigate, if you mounted one on a cruiser, the frigate would still be 72% faster. However a cruiser mounting a MWD would be 36% faster than a NWD frigate. A cruiser with two NWD's would be 75% faster than a frigate with one but would use 46% more cap than using one MWD. Currently a cruiser with MWD is 307% faster than a frigate without one and that is just too much of a bonus that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Edited by: DarkRift on 13/06/2003 07:19:33
|
Deia
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 08:46:00 -
[5]
A mwd is not put without purpose in the game I guess O_O
===========
Ppl die, every way. |
DREAMWORKS
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 09:35:00 -
[6]
Maybe even take all MWD out, since it causes a solo player to be able to run and strike tactical without having a team to support him...
__________________________
http://www.nin.com/visuals/thtf_hi.html |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |