EVE Search - A constructive post on why MWD should not disable turning.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

A constructive post on why MWD should not disable turning.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:04:00 - [1] 1) Because battleships are big and slow. And they need something to assist with turning for the impatient types not willing to pay for this game anymore if battleships become even slower. And if someone wants to lose a bunch of shield and cap to turn faster, then that is their prerogative. 2) Because even if an interceptor MWD-orbits another ship. The interceptors signature radius will be so big that he will not be invulnerable anymore. That solves the problem with interceptors being impossible to hit. So there is really no need to add a second nerf on top of the signature radius. It's either one or the other. Adding two solutions to one problem is not needed in this case. 3) Nine out of ten paying customers will not agree to this straight-line MWD nerf. 5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers.. Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer. My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period. Expires on 19. September 2004
Takrolimus	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:23:00 - [2] Sorry buddy, If you tell me my megathron won't have a 25% cap/shield bonus and won't be a huge target with this silly signature thing, then I have to say I would accept this turning penalty in a heartbeat. I mean most BS do not have mwd's equipped and their pilots deal with the slow ass turning just fine. I think we should keep the agility penalty but get rid of the cap/shield and sig radius ones. 9/10 lol nice numbers
Andrew Jade	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:31:00 - [3] Edited by: Andrew Jade on 11/06/2004 17:32:29 Originally by: Mr nStuff /snip K, now, step away from the key board, breath deeply, now return to the computer, click 'cacel subscription' and play something else. MWD's make Ab's worthless and unused in PVP which they shouldnt be. MWD;s should only be a travelling tool they were never meant for combat. Quote: 3) Nine out of ten paying customers will not agree to this straight-line MWD nerf. No. 9/10 people in this game will just get on with the game and not whine at the changes. The key to a good and prosperous life? Adaptation. When there are changes just deal with it you numpty and stop ya whining. -AJ- WTB: Large faction smartbomb with good range. Top isk paid.
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Mr nStuff on 11/06/2004 17:53:00 I got thoughs numbers from my [old post] on this.. I don't think they plan to replace one nerf for another nerf. The signature radius thing is staying. The 25% cap reduction thing is staying. The 25% shield reduction thingy... staying. Now add the inability to turn on top of that? You sure you know what your talking about though? So you ONLY ever use a MWD in a straight line? I think you might miss it more than you think. Maybe not though. If they nerf MWD turning. They need to add a turn assist module. Because ME personally, I would replace a nerfed MWD with a turn assist module on a battleship. On a battleship I use a MWD to turn above all other uses. But that's just me.
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:37:00 - [5] Hey Andrew Jade. This is still a flame free thread. So please see your way out of it. 5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers.. Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer. My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period. Expires on 19. September 2004
Ehxo	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:39:00 - [6] Edited by: Ehxo on 11/06/2004 17:40:55 What they need is a new type of module. Inertia Boosters. These would fit in med slots and would only help to turn the ship faster, like the boosters on the NASA Space Shuttle. They would only be for battleships and maybe a medium version for cruisers. They wouldn't need to be activated, and would act as a permanent boost that would be used everytime the ship turns. Using them would suck more capacitors than normal when your ship is turning. Because of the automatism of the module, lots of CPU would be needed to install the module. Power grid usage would be comparable to the afterburners of the same level.
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 17:55:00 - [7] Good.. very constructive. And I agree.. I see the Rifter on your signature is rendored twice. It's like two Rifters in one. I have a screen shot of that too. Kind of looks like an x-wing like that.
Karial	Posted - 2004.06.11 18:22:00 - [8] Originally by: Ehxo Edited by: Ehxo on 11/06/2004 17:40:55 What they need is a new type of module. Inertia Boosters. These would fit in med slots and would only help to turn the ship faster, like the boosters on the NASA Space Shuttle. They would only be for battleships and maybe a medium version for cruisers. They wouldn't need to be activated, and would act as a permanent boost that would be used everytime the ship turns. Using them would suck more capacitors than normal when your ship is turning. Because of the automatism of the module, lots of CPU would be needed to install the module. Power grid usage would be comparable to the afterburners of the same level. Um, hate to be a bother, but low slot items do exist that peform this exact function. I think they are even called inertia stabilizers with a description of "Improves ship handling and maneuverability".
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 18:27:00 - [9] You can fit 7 of thoughs on a battleship and you still will not see a noticeable change in the turning behavior. I've tried this already.
Kalki Nibiru	Posted - 2004.06.11 19:08:00 - [10] AJ, you are completely wrong, the Megathron NEEDS a MWD to get within range for combat, TomB even posted in the past that the Megathron is designed to be a close range ship that uses MWD's. If this change is on chaos, its BS, because once someone sees a megathron MWD'ing towards them, they will just move laterally out of the way. Its already hard enough to get in close with the cap and shield penalties, not its just making it much worse. Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate . <Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market? <Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with
Altai Saker	Posted - 2004.06.11 20:04:00 - [11] This will make blasterthrons a thing of the past. Get rid of the shield and cap nerfs while making mwd's faster, and maybe they will be used on a blasterthron after this patch.
Drakxter	Posted - 2004.06.11 20:14:00 - [12] Edited by: Drakxter on 11/06/2004 20:19:41 First of all. As far as I know, there have been made no "nerf" on turning with MWDs. If there has, then great, if not and the post you made is based on what people have talked about on the forums, then the followring answers are what you should read. If such a thing was added, and turning would be limited (is should be the higher speed the lower turning though, so really it should effect ALL speeds, not only using a MWD, but maybe evne more when using a MWD..) then the sig (which is silly) thing should be removed, and cap and shield should stay .' --- Originally by: Mr nStuff 1) Because battleships are big and slow. And they need something to assist with turning for the impatient types not willing to pay for this game anymore if battleships become even slower. And if someone wants to lose a bunch of shield and cap to turn faster, then that is their prerogative. Did you know, that if you fly SLOWER, you can do smaller turns. But if you fly FASTER you are forced to do bigger turns, which in the long run takes more time then the "slow" turn. Quote: 2) Because even if an interceptor MWD-orbits another ship. The interceptors signature radius will be so big that he will not be invulnerable anymore. That solves the problem with interceptors being impossible to hit. So there is really no need to add a second nerf on top of the signature radius. It's either one or the other. Adding two solutions to one problem is not needed in this case. You can still hit them. You just need to use the right stuff. Other frigates, drones, smartbombs, mines. Quote: 3) Nine out of ten paying customers will not agree to this straight-line MWD nerf. Since when have you been able to talk on the behalf of 90% of the people playing? And as a side note, it would not be a straight line nerf.. You would just turn SLOWER, = you will have to orbit a much greater range. ------------- Most tired of thing atm: - Mods on the forum saying: "Please use the bug report page to submit bugs, the forum is not the place to post them." and then closing a topic.
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 20:49:00 - [13] I'm talking about how a MWD assists in turning a slow battleship. I could care less about the interceptor having to orbit further out or anything like that. This is all about screwing up the turn assist on a battleship to me really. I'm not interested in adjusting my speed to turn easier. I'm all about using a MWD to assist with my turning abilities. it's all about turning fast and moving faster. I don't think 100% of the player base actually use a MWD.. Anyone that does not use a MWD, has no right to have an opinion on this subject. They are just here to be annoying by disputing something that doesn't affect them in any way what so ever. My 2 cents on that note. Again. this COULD actually be nothing more than a rumor. But this is also nothing more than a post from someone with an opinion and no real facts. 5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers.. Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer. My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period. Expires on 19. September 2004
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 20:57:00 - [14] here's a hypothetical situation.. you're using your MWD to approach a stargate. You run into a Billboard so your ship starts flying in the wrong direction. Well now you have a problem because your MWD is active, and you're now heading away from the stargate.. What you gonna do? What.. you gonna do..
Ehxo	Posted - 2004.06.11 21:00:00 - [15] Originally by: Karial Originally by: Ehxo Edited by: Ehxo on 11/06/2004 17:40:55 What they need is a new type of module. Inertia Boosters. These would fit in med slots and would only help to turn the ship faster, like the boosters on the NASA Space Shuttle. They would only be for battleships and maybe a medium version for cruisers. They wouldn't need to be activated, and would act as a permanent boost that would be used everytime the ship turns. Using them would suck more capacitors than normal when your ship is turning. Because of the automatism of the module, lots of CPU would be needed to install the module. Power grid usage would be comparable to the afterburners of the same level. Um, hate to be a bother, but low slot items do exist that peform this exact function. I think they are even called inertia stabilizers with a description of "Improves ship handling and maneuverability". That's not the same thing, and they don't work well, and they are low slot items. What I want is med slot, and would take away fuel (capacitor) as you turn the ship. A visual effect could be added as well, that'd be cool. The name could be something like "Latteral Maneuverability Boosters" or something like that...
Lansfear	Posted - 2004.06.11 21:13:00 - [16] I don't see how frigates will survive after this change. The only saving grace of frigates right now is the ability to orbit at speeds greater than 2000m/s, and the ability to zoom at 7,000-16,000m/s away from drones. With rockets and light missles getting a speed boost, frigates are toast added with the signiture increase/straight line mwd changes. And i realy hate BS only fights, so freakin boring.
Del Narveux	Posted - 2004.06.11 21:24:00 - [17] Heres my thoughts: MWD stands for microwarpdrive. When you warp normally, you have to go in a straight line so why would the mini version be any different? I think a better idea than making MWD back into uber-AB's would be to increase the effectiveness and size variety of AB's so theyre more useful on larger ships. Specifically, sizes like 2/20/200 and 5/50/500 would be VERY nice to see. If youve ever mounted a 10MN on a frigate, or a 100mn on a cruiser, you know what Im getting at, but you also know that it isnt really a viable combat tool since it eats up way too many resources. _________________ [SAK] And Proud Of It! aka Cpt Bogus Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.11 21:39:00 - [18] The MWD accounts for turning thrusters as well. Thus giving it the turning assistance. So even though the MWD is going straight. The thruster it's self is facing at an angle. This is what makes you turn faster. Seriously though. It's just an afterburner on craziness. It's not REALLY a miniature Warp Drive. It's not REALLY creating a hole in the fabric of space-time. It's just giving you a phenomenal boost of propulsion. which is applied to turning as well. See, it's really hard to use "realism" as your argument, when your talking about a fictional game. There is always a loop-hole to it that can be exploited.
Coret Trobane	Posted - 2004.06.12 12:56:00 - [19] Originally by: Mr nStuff here's a hypothetical situation.. you're using your MWD to approach a stargate. You run into a Billboard so your ship starts flying in the wrong direction. Well now you have a problem because your MWD is active, and you're now heading away from the stargate.. What you gonna do? What.. you gonna do.. Uhmm, easy ... make sure there isn't a billboard in the way when i start MWD. Hell, i do that already.
Johnson McCrae	Posted - 2004.06.12 13:07:00 - [20] With the inertia nerf, frigates won't be ABLE to orbit with MWD (straight line, remember). I think the Frigate Faction will have an issue with this, regardless of the sigrad nerf. Frigates will become big honking exploding targets. It ain't over till the fat lady falls on ya! [ 2004.10.09 02:50:23 ] (combat) Your 425mm Compressed Coil Gun I perfectly strikes Guardian Sentry, wrecking for 747.3 damage.
Sinist	Posted - 2004.06.12 15:49:00 - [21] I like the change. Just use afterburners and live with not being able to go 10km/s while orbiting shooting and looting ALL the time. Use the MWD for travel or drive by's. CCP I LIKE NO TURNING WITH MWDS.
Lansfear	Posted - 2004.06.12 16:08:00 - [22] Originally by: Sinist I like the change. Just use afterburners and live with not being able to go 10km/s while orbiting shooting and looting ALL the time. Use the MWD for travel or drive by's. CCP I LIKE NO TURNING WITH MWDS. Its crap like this that gets things nerfed in th first place. You have no idea how important speed is to frigates do you?
Demangel	Posted - 2004.06.12 16:44:00 - [23] Well I would be ok with this "rumored" change IF and only if the following was also put in at the same time: 1: Missiles MUST have thier full agility nerfs according to size and intended purpose. For example to hit a frig you need to use a light missile or rocket, or get REALLY REALLY lucky with a heavy. A cruise missile or torp should never EVER come anywhere NEAR a Frig that is not Webbed... EVER PERIOD End of story. It's only fair... 2: Drones get fixed so they can't perfectly strike me for full damage every time they fire, until I am 60KM away from them. Sure drones should be the bane of a frig, but give us little guys a chance will you? 3: Ab's should give a slightly higher speed boost. 30ish percent kinda sucks... I mean even though frigs can do what seems to be better damage now to bigger ships than ever before (not counting current TQ cruise missile spam), the main job of the frig is still to lock down the target for the larger ships or damage dealing ships to take out. To do that you need to be able to get close enough to web/scramble/dampen them before the enemy can align for warp and escape. 4: Sig radius effect needs to be removed... It made very little sense to begin with, and while it does what it's supposed to do perfectly last time I tested... If I can't orbit with it however due to some change, it will be worthless for combat. So either keep the 500% sig radius increase, or implement the straight line effect but remove the 500% sig radius effect. That would make it much fairer. 5: 10MN ABs should be completely unusable for a frigate... Period... and 100 unusable for a cruiser... period. If all the above (and few others I forgot about) have been implemented and fixed, then the MWD making you turn slower WON'T be that bad a change for frigate pilots (IE it would be something more easily adapted by the average frig pilot like myself who choses to fly the things even though he has millions of ISK to throw away.). In closing, I beleive AB's need some love anyway, they should be the premier combat speed module in the game, with MWD's being used to get into and out of range in small short hops, or for travel and escape (think picard manuever from star trek). Having them be uber AB's kinda makes AB's useless to anyone thats not a newb or otherwise able to fit a MWD instead. Also with MWD's a missile frig user doesn't get a big penalty... They can fire thier light missiles or whatever at a frig and not find it harder to hit with thier MWD active. However if a turret user activates his/her MWD and tries to hit the broad side of a barn while orbiting (Apoc for example), even at the best ranges they will miss all the time. Meaning if MWD's remain a good Combat module, a new dynamic will be created. Any frig that can go over 3KM/s with a MWD will be imune to missiles, medium turrets and large turrets (unless they get webbed), but if they use turrets won't be able to hit anything. However any missile frig, can use their MWD and still do damage without penalty to anything that can't dodge said missile. So in that respect, MWD's need to go as a combat speed boosting module... As for bigger ships like blasterthrons? I must admit, I'm not a BS pilot... but I can see how being reduced to just AB's will hurt potentially... So again, don't jump on me here, even if I do support the idea in theory, however I agree CCP had better not dump this change onto TQ without at LEAST fixing the missile physics, and Drone shenanegans. I as a pilot could easily adapt if those two changes go into effect at the same time as the MWD=striaght line nerf, and I think most other Frig pilots worth thier "Kamikazi of the month club" membership card would also. Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you Demangel > Dude... I would call.. Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet. Galaxion > Just a bit.
Jazz Bo	Posted - 2004.06.12 17:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Mr nStuff I'm talking about how a MWD assists in turning a slow battleship. I could care less about the interceptor having to orbit further out or anything like that. This is all about screwing up the turn assist on a battleship to me really. I'm not interested in adjusting my speed to turn easier. I'm all about using a MWD to assist with my turning abilities. it's all about turning fast and moving faster. I don't think 100% of the player base actually use a MWD.. Anyone that does not use a MWD, has no right to have an opinion on this subject. They are just here to be annoying by disputing something that doesn't affect them in any way what so ever. My 2 cents on that note. Again. this COULD actually be nothing more than a rumor. But this is also nothing more than a post from someone with an opinion and no real facts. Maybe the MWD isn't supposed to be used as a "turn assist" module on a Battleship? Maybe it's just supposed to make you go faster like it says in the description? Yes, I've used it for quick 180 turns myself, but if I'm honest I think it's pretty silly. But if they implement all these penalties to MWDs I'll probably never fly my Blasterthron again. A module having three or more penalties is just ridiculous, no matter how useful it is. Oh well... /hops into his Raven Originally by: DB Preacher Celestial Apocalypse - Brave souls fighting the endless smak.
Minsc	Posted - 2004.06.12 17:33:00 - [25] Did everyone fail to read the little dev post where they stated that the burst time on MWD's will be reduced from 10s to 4 seconds? The way I see it you will still be able to use MWD's in combat, you just can't leave them on Autorepeat. Haven't been able to get on the test server though so kinda hard to confirm by testing.
Sinist	Posted - 2004.06.12 17:36:00 - [26] Originally by: Lansfear Originally by: Sinist I like the change. Just use afterburners and live with not being able to go 10km/s while orbiting shooting and looting ALL the time. Use the MWD for travel or drive by's. CCP I LIKE NO TURNING WITH MWDS. Its crap like this that gets things nerfed in th first place. You have no idea how important speed is to frigates do you? I havent tested the MWDS on out chaos. They have a 4 second duration now. It doesnt seem impossible to me to make turns every 4 seconds between activations. Dont set your MWD on autorepeat and just activate them manually. Maybe you should test it on chaos. Im not taking anything away from your argument just dont flame. As of now I still think its a good idea.
Takrolimus	Posted - 2004.06.12 18:25:00 - [27] Not been able to get onto Chaos since the hardware upgrade myself. But last time I checked, mwd still had a 10 sec duration. In fact, no matter where I look, I can't find this dev post about them being reduced to 4 secs. Can anyone supply a link?
Mr nStuff	Posted - 2004.06.12 19:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Sinist I like the change. Just use afterburners and live with not being able to go 10km/s while orbiting shooting and looting ALL the time. That may be your opinion on it. But i'm not worried about frigates. I'm talking about Battleships and their inability to turn. I use a MWD to turn my battleship. Originally by: Jazz Bo Maybe the MWD isn't supposed to be used as a "turn assist" module on a Battleship? Well I have used it for this the past year. And I probably won't last another year without it. Plain and simple. Do you care? Probably not. And so you shouldn't. Anyways.. the description says, "Massive boost to speed for a very short time.".. This can also be applied to the turning speed. I'm simply not willing to stand by and watch the battleship become even slower. This is a GAME and it shouldn't be like watching the hour-hand on a clock. 5 R&D Agents, 10months, Zero BPO Offers.. Onboard navigational [Planetary Avoidance] computer. My account will be suspended at the end of the current play period. Expires on 19. September 2004
Isiana	Posted - 2004.06.12 20:00:00 - [29] Edited by: Isiana on 12/06/2004 20:02:12 Frigate combat was fun while it lasted, thanks for a great time ccp, now who wants to sell me a raven Carebear\|Me Alts
Reverend Mitterak	Posted - 2004.06.13 01:06:00 - [30] I hate to point this out but posts in this tread seem biased. Most people who support the change of MWDs seem to be of caldari and Minmtar origin, two ship classes that do not use MWD and in fact are very vulnerable to blasterthrons. It is no wonder so many of these pilots advocate the change as suddenly, their most feared apponent a blasterthron will no longer be able to function. ANYONE who has flown a blaster/armor tanked megathron (WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE) understands the importance of MWD. Ok so CCP is changing the burst time to 4 seconds. Now instead of being able to MWD at a player and still have 50% cap a blasterthron will only have 12 % because more bursts will be required... That is NOT ok. MWDs already put players at a disadvantage, loosing cap and shield that is why a megathron must be an armor tank, however with MWDs being nerfed again I feel, and ISD members in a different threads have pointed out that megas are good 425 users, megas will become 425 oriented BS MEGAS AND 425s A megathron is not meant to be a railgun user. Hunt NPCs and you will see this Serps who fly gal ships drop named blasters, guristas who fly caldari ships drop rails. Rails are secondary to megas. Megas must armor tank, 4 mid slots do no allow for good shield tanking, however in order to fit 425s with current power grid usage power diags must be used in lows removing a Mega's ability to armor tank. Suddenly a ship exsists with firepower but no defense, anyone with good skills will utterly obliterate a mega with 425s. Even Tomb, developer has said the MWD is meant to be used by a mega in order to make it use blasters. TO ANYONE WHO POSTED THAT MWD ARE NOT A COMBAT TOOL YOU ARE WRONG. Tomb has said so, so please stop posting that. Frigs need MWD and Blaster ships need MWD. this nerf should not be done, MWDs should remain unchanged.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.