| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xelios
   |
Posted - 2004.07.05 22:25:00 -
[1]
1) Drop the 500% sig increase on mwd's.
2) Change webs to a size classed module and base the rate at which they decrease a target's speed on their size. Ie. a battleship sized web (with battleship sized fitting reqs) would slow a frigate to its new top speed almost instantly, but would slow another battleship more gradually.
3) Include a passive mode toggle for webs, which would automatically web a targetted ship that comes into range (1 ship maximum, a toggle so it can be turned back to manual mode and allow you to web a certain ship if you want).
4) Decrease web duration and cap use, perhaps a 2-3 second duration with cap use to reflect this. This will allow them to be used more effectively in bursts.
5) Fix the infinite range bug on drones, but leave the rest alone.
What this will fix:
Frigates attacking a battleship will be vulnerable to heavy nosferatu, webs, med/small turrets, drones and smartbombs. Battleships will be vulnerable to large frigate squads, as will drones.
Frigate fights will become much more fun, as both frigates will be travelling as they were meant to (at high speed), occasionally making passes at eachother allowing their webs to slow eachother briefly while they get close, making for more fast paced and intense frigate battles.
Close range battleships will no longer be penalized with a sig radius the size of a Titan just for trying to get into range.
Frigates will no longer be penalized for using their only advantage, speed.
Thoughts?
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.05 22:25:00 -
[2]
1) Drop the 500% sig increase on mwd's.
2) Change webs to a size classed module and base the rate at which they decrease a target's speed on their size. Ie. a battleship sized web (with battleship sized fitting reqs) would slow a frigate to its new top speed almost instantly, but would slow another battleship more gradually.
3) Include a passive mode toggle for webs, which would automatically web a targetted ship that comes into range (1 ship maximum, a toggle so it can be turned back to manual mode and allow you to web a certain ship if you want).
4) Decrease web duration and cap use, perhaps a 2-3 second duration with cap use to reflect this. This will allow them to be used more effectively in bursts.
5) Fix the infinite range bug on drones, but leave the rest alone.
What this will fix:
Frigates attacking a battleship will be vulnerable to heavy nosferatu, webs, med/small turrets, drones and smartbombs. Battleships will be vulnerable to large frigate squads, as will drones.
Frigate fights will become much more fun, as both frigates will be travelling as they were meant to (at high speed), occasionally making passes at eachother allowing their webs to slow eachother briefly while they get close, making for more fast paced and intense frigate battles.
Close range battleships will no longer be penalized with a sig radius the size of a Titan just for trying to get into range.
Frigates will no longer be penalized for using their only advantage, speed.
Thoughts?
|
Gaijin Lanis
|
Posted - 2004.07.05 22:33:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Gaijin Lanis on 05/07/2004 22:37:21
 Originally by: Xelios
Please undo everything you just did, and add some more silly stuff because I don't understand the physics behind the current systems.
1) I'd rather they kept the signature increase and dropped the shield/cap nerf. Not to mention, code the signature increase to reflect the ship's current speed.
2) Why? The webs we have now already do this...
3) Why?
4) Why?
5) Congratulations! You've made a valid point!
(Please note: All instances of "Why?" were rhetorical, implying there is no reason for the proposed changes.)
|
Gaijin Lanis
|
Posted - 2004.07.05 22:33:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Gaijin Lanis on 05/07/2004 22:37:21
Originally by: Xelios
Please undo everything you just did, and add some more silly stuff because I don't understand the physics behind the current systems.
1) I'd rather they kept the signature increase and dropped the shield/cap nerf. Not to mention, code the signature increase to reflect the ship's current speed.
2) Why? The webs we have now already do this...
3) Why?
4) Why?
5) Congratulations! You've made a valid point!
(Please note: All instances of "Why?" were rhetorical, implying there is no reason for the proposed changes.)
|
Infested II
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 00:56:00 -
[5]
All his points were valid, so why don't you just be quiet.
I think those are very fair fixes.
|
Infested II
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 00:56:00 -
[6]
All his points were valid, so why don't you just be quiet.
I think those are very fair fixes.
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:26:00 -
[7]
Quote:
I'd rather they kept the signature increase and dropped the shield/cap nerf. Not to mention, code the signature increase to reflect the ship's current speed.
Thank you for your opinion.
Quote:
2) Why? The webs we have now already do this...
Not that I'm aware of. Webs gradually slow frigates, so by the time the frigate is going slow enough to be kept in web range it's already out of web range. By introducing battleship sized webbers that almost instantly slow down a frigate you can keep that frigate in web range much longer, making it possible to hit it with medium and small turrets before it gets out of web range again.
Quote:
3) Why?
Because trying to web 3 frigates that are dipping in and out of web range continuously is less than efficient. On top of this, if web duration is changed like I'm suggesting it will become much more difficult to coordinate webbing on multiple frigates or interceptors. Basically it will require all of your attention trying to keep track of the targets and webbing them, nevermind actually shooting them or managing your defenses.
Quote:
4) Why?
Because without this change you can web a frigate, but if the frigate leaves your web range you have to wait until the web duration is finished before you can web another frigate. With a 2-3 second duration webs can be used in pulses, webbing frigates while they dip into range and allowing you to switch to another frigate when the original frig moves out of range.
Any other questions?
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:26:00 -
[8]
Quote:
I'd rather they kept the signature increase and dropped the shield/cap nerf. Not to mention, code the signature increase to reflect the ship's current speed.
Thank you for your opinion.
Quote:
2) Why? The webs we have now already do this...
Not that I'm aware of. Webs gradually slow frigates, so by the time the frigate is going slow enough to be kept in web range it's already out of web range. By introducing battleship sized webbers that almost instantly slow down a frigate you can keep that frigate in web range much longer, making it possible to hit it with medium and small turrets before it gets out of web range again.
Quote:
3) Why?
Because trying to web 3 frigates that are dipping in and out of web range continuously is less than efficient. On top of this, if web duration is changed like I'm suggesting it will become much more difficult to coordinate webbing on multiple frigates or interceptors. Basically it will require all of your attention trying to keep track of the targets and webbing them, nevermind actually shooting them or managing your defenses.
Quote:
4) Why?
Because without this change you can web a frigate, but if the frigate leaves your web range you have to wait until the web duration is finished before you can web another frigate. With a 2-3 second duration webs can be used in pulses, webbing frigates while they dip into range and allowing you to switch to another frigate when the original frig moves out of range.
Any other questions?
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:28:00 -
[9]
After some more thought, maybe webs could be rigged to increase the sig radius of the target ship as well as decrease its speed, but not by 500%. Maybe 100%. It makes more sense this way from a logical point of view; the ship is now travelling more slowly and with less agility, therefor it should be easier to hit for turrets. Making a frigate easier to hit when using a module designed to make it harder to hit is counter intuitive and, IMO, downright silly.
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.06 23:28:00 -
[10]
After some more thought, maybe webs could be rigged to increase the sig radius of the target ship as well as decrease its speed, but not by 500%. Maybe 100%. It makes more sense this way from a logical point of view; the ship is now travelling more slowly and with less agility, therefor it should be easier to hit for turrets. Making a frigate easier to hit when using a module designed to make it harder to hit is counter intuitive and, IMO, downright silly.
|
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 04:17:00 -
[11]
signed on all but the auto-web(3),
auto-webbing sounds a lot like afk-pvping to me :)
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 04:17:00 -
[12]
signed on all but the auto-web(3),
auto-webbing sounds a lot like afk-pvping to me :)
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Monkey Fish
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 09:58:00 -
[13]
yeh i agree with vex, cool ideas, very cool
|
Monkey Fish
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 09:58:00 -
[14]
yeh i agree with vex, cool ideas, very cool
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 10:13:00 -
[15]
Believe me the last thing I want is afk pvping, I'm just concerned about the amount of multitasking that would be involved in this kind of system. Could be tested though, all but 3 can be implemented and if it proves to be way too much to handle effectively 3 could always be put in later. Glad you like the ideas though =) I'd rather give players the tools they need to counter a module/ship than build a nerf into that module/ship to make it less effective.
|
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 10:13:00 -
[16]
Believe me the last thing I want is afk pvping, I'm just concerned about the amount of multitasking that would be involved in this kind of system. Could be tested though, all but 3 can be implemented and if it proves to be way too much to handle effectively 3 could always be put in later. Glad you like the ideas though =) I'd rather give players the tools they need to counter a module/ship than build a nerf into that module/ship to make it less effective.
|
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:07:00 -
[17]
An ability to multitask during pvp is what helps seperate the good pvpers from the bad without just counting skill points.
Eves already begun automating several features to pvp such as auto reload etc, theres no real need to automate things anymore or pvp will simply become a case of telling your ship to attack and then sit back and see what it does.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it... |
Wild Rho
|
Posted - 2004.07.07 14:07:00 -
[18]
An ability to multitask during pvp is what helps seperate the good pvpers from the bad without just counting skill points.
Eves already begun automating several features to pvp such as auto reload etc, theres no real need to automate things anymore or pvp will simply become a case of telling your ship to attack and then sit back and see what it does.
I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it... |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 19:58:00 -
[19]
I agree with Gaijin, i think the sig radius increase has its merits, and should be based on speed of the ship not a constant 500%, also remove or reduce the cap/shield penalties and then id be happy 
................. |
Cruz
|
Posted - 2004.07.12 19:58:00 -
[20]
I agree with Gaijin, i think the sig radius increase has its merits, and should be based on speed of the ship not a constant 500%, also remove or reduce the cap/shield penalties and then id be happy
................. |
Seraph Demon
|
Posted - 2004.07.13 23:39:00 -
[21]
While I'm not entirely happy about it, the sig radius increase was specifically made to give webbed mwders a pain in the ass, I had a long gripe about this before the change was made, and I still stand by my original idea, which was, MWDs should behave more like normal warping, extremely fast acceleration, virtually no turning (agility), can be stopped by warp scramblers NOT webbifiers... but no-one listens to me 
|
Seraph Demon
|
Posted - 2004.07.13 23:39:00 -
[22]
While I'm not entirely happy about it, the sig radius increase was specifically made to give webbed mwders a pain in the ass, I had a long gripe about this before the change was made, and I still stand by my original idea, which was, MWDs should behave more like normal warping, extremely fast acceleration, virtually no turning (agility), can be stopped by warp scramblers NOT webbifiers... but no-one listens to me
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |