| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aleus Stygian
   |
Posted - 2008.08.05 19:28:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Jade Constantine
Okay I kinda like it.
Definitely have something here.
ADSFSADFSADFASDASFASD!
WOW! CHECK THIS OUT!
But, this idea has my support.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 20:41:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Mikhalio
Sar's idea is slightly more eloquent and would require less code / ship overhauling.
It's intelligent feedback like this that we all wish we could get.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:45:00 -
[3]
Originally by: RuriHoshino
You're exactly right, congratulations. It's a shame that blaster ships don't generally carry fat armor-plated HP buffers, because that would allow them to mistime their approach and still survive long enough to kill their tar... owait... 
Not to mention that at the absolute worst that's a 10 second wait before your still highest raw DPS weapons system in the game proceeds to chew through them. It would require a tiny bit of finesse, not quite so much as kiting at the bleeding edge of web range in an AC cruiser, but still.
More seriously, you might also be right that if CCP had proposed it the player base would have crapped on it as well. However, it still would have at least been a moderate, limited change to one or two modules, rather than a ham-handed sweeping overhaul of fundamental game mechanics.
Spaketh, the truthiness has been.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:10:00 -
[4]
Originally by: RuriHoshino
This change would make it impossible to run away and shoot a tackling interceptor off you at the same time, which would force you to make a tactical choice regarding the best way to extract yourself from your current situation. But that's something decent nano pilots are familiar with already, so it shouldn't be a problem.
You mean that they know anything but how to line themselves up for the best trajectory? So far, I haven't seen much else...
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dreznengul
Worst idea I've seen for fixing "the speed problem".
GTFO, Sac pilot.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 20:43:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 07/08/2008 20:43:32
Another thread that concerns this and which needs a little love.
I still support this thread's subject though. And I'd love to hear Dinique's suggestions.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:40:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Drakolus
I like it. The only thing that comes to mind is maybe some mitigation of the fitting on AB's/MWD's.
If you use the MWD to close and still want/need an AB for effective fighting, the 25% "where'd my cap go" from the MWD along with the fitting requirements of a decent AB are going to be a bit steep.
Remove the 25% capacitor nerf?
"adjust" the fitting requirements of MWD's and AB's (maybe they give a sympathetic fitting reduction to each other when fitted to the same ship? But obviously cannot be used at the same time)
*Scripting a single module may be a better/more elegant solution though. AB/MWD script or something.
Marvelous.
As was pointed out to me rather well though, fitting two speed modules like that will be hard on most ships, and make for huge trouble with Interceptors. Thus, it might be better to keep the cap penalty and a high energy cost, and not make ABs stack, instead making the Microwarp simply less powerful than it is now? 200-250% speed increase, perhaps?
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:47:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Solomon XI
Originally by: Vanden
Mix that with reduced webs and you've got a deal.
Still going to hurt blaster boats and our tiny optimal.
Also we NEED our MWD during PvP (blaster boats) so turning our guns off while it's running can nerf us still.
Unless you've read most descriptions of or issues on and with blasterboats, the whole deal with them is that they are supposed to charge hard and deal with the threat through huge damage before they are worn down. Well, if they are Gallente, that is, and not range-bonused things ß la Caldari. In which case you won't have too much of a problem.
It should work. Really.
|
| |
|