| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arte
AFK
   |
Posted - 2008.07.27 21:32:00 -
[1]
Just a couple of thoughts to throw out there for peeps to mull over while they actually test the proposed changes to speed mods from Monday onwards.
What if....
New variations of afterburner are introduced
Afterburners have ælargerÆ variations introduced, such as 2Mn and 3Mn (for frigates) afterburner which operated similar to MWD now but with appropriate increasing penalties such as fitting and capacitor
2Mn Afterburner
Gives a boost to the maximum velocity of the ship when activated. The thrust that boosts the ship, and the corresponding maximum velocity bonus, are limited by the mass of the ship that uses this module.
Note: Frigate class module
Powergrid usage = 12
CPU usage = 17
Activation cost = 25
Max Velocity bonus = 200%
Activation Time = 10 seconds
Overwhelming agility nerf applied to MWDs
MWDs are changed to instead give a continued large speed boost but when applied, the ship loses navigation control and can only move in a straight line so it is literally a micro-warp... an escape/evasion module if youÆre in trouble, or a æclose-the-gapÆ module if youÆre chasing or want to get in amongst the blob. Apply a 1 second activation timer with 5 second reactivation penalty to allow movement in quick bursts.
1Mn Microwarp Drive
Massive boost to speed for a very short time. The resulting micro-warp tunnel places so much strain on the integrity of the ship that capacitor and shield are required constantly to maintain the integrity of its warp containment field. Any navigation input would place too much sheer on the frame and so navigation controls are inoperable for the duration of the activation.
Penalty: 25% penalty to max capacitor.
Note: Frigate class module
Powergrid usage = 15
CPU usage = 25
Activation cost = 60
Max Velocity bonus = 1000%
Activation Time = 1 second
Reactivation delay = 5 seconds
Summary
This way the MWD ceases to be a dog-fighting module, a not-quite-as-effective-but-still-effective modules are available to replace it for blaster ships etc.... and everyone is happy...  (yer right).
|
Zarthanon
Gallente
TEAMSTERS
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:49:00 -
[2]
I shall give you props, these are very good ideas that I would be interested in seeing CCP give a thought on.
I like pie. |
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 09:02:00 -
[3]
Nice ideas, much better than CCPs Super Sledgehammer Mk2 nerf.
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Imperial Servants
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 09:32:00 -
[4]
About MWD's. If they only boost for 1 second they become totally useless for Battleships. The acceleration is just to slow. The 10 seconds, or just 5 seconds, should be enough.
Otherwise a good alternative to current mechanics.
|
Arte
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:31:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
About MWD's. If they only boost for 1 second they become totally useless for Battleships. The acceleration is just to slow. The 10 seconds, or just 5 seconds, should be enough.
Otherwise a good alternative to current mechanics.
My thinking was that if you engaged MWD, you are not aiming to 'close range for combat' necessarily so it's a 'GTFO' - instead of a 'GTFI' - module although you could do it with skill and timing.
Because of this, maybe the inertia mechanics could be configured for this module specifically so that it would still get to speed v.quickly instead of the slow acceleration that happens now. How would that asuage your concerns
The replacement for what we now use to close combat for close range ships would be 'heavier class' afterburners such as 20MN and 30MN for cruisers; 200MN and 300MN for battleships and these would have the acceleration 'problems' that speed modules have now commensurate with mass and inertia etc.
|
Arte
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:36:00 -
[6]
Just a thought as well. Another bonus to this, if the new 'warp scramble' changes were implimented would be that someone would have to get into close range to be able to disable your ability to micro-warp out and so would perhaps (unless they're fitted with  pimp modules) be forced into your optimal/web range to be able to hold you properly.
Even if they do micro-warp out they're still not in the clear as they'd probably still be in range for people to burn to or be sniped if they're appropriately fitted; but it should be enough to give them a bit of breathing space and stand a chance of breaking out of the cluster they find themselves in.
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:11:00 -
[7]
these changes have been suggested many many times, and i still feel its a much better then the solution CCP has come up with. I think MWD's propelling you only in a straight line would be soo much better and more interesting then just an overpowered AB.
Also this could made to compliment certain ships, such as inties and vaga's, by giving them a role bonus to the agility penalty, so they can use their mwd's as usual.
I think it would be a much more interesting change, and it wouldn't totally destroy blaster boats.
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:29:00 -
[8]
Increase AB speed boost, decrease AB mass adition (agi penalty), increase MWD agility penalty significantly, increase MWD sig penalty 15-25%.
Nerf webs a bit. 80% 7.5km, 65% 10km and 50% 16km. Or something like that, or scripts.
|
Arte
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 17:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dzajic
Increase AB speed boost, decrease AB mass adition (agi penalty), increase MWD agility penalty significantly, increase MWD sig penalty 15-25%.
Nerf webs a bit. 80% 7.5km, 65% 10km and 50% 16km. Or something like that, or scripts.
The MWD/AB adjustments are the kind of thing what would approach what I'm aiming for with these proposals.
If you make the ABs operate as weakened MWDs in their present incarnation but have more powerful modules (so fitting them is a trade off - speed vs practical fittings).
Personally, I'd prefer the 'thread' idea about webs, (making them 'sig' based in a way, I think by Goumindong??) to changing webs wholesale, that and the use of scripts to change range/effectiveness.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |