| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TomB
   |
Posted - 2004.07.28 20:23:00 -
[1]
NTThe power changes have been taken back, ships using oversized modules will be looked at after upcoming patch.
2004.07.06 19:30:45combatTomB strikes you critically with his Nerf Bat, pwning you for -100% everything. |
TomB
|
Posted - 2004.07.28 20:23:00 -
[2]
NTThe power changes have been taken back, ships using oversized modules will be looked at after upcoming patch.
2004.07.06 19:30:45combatTomB strikes you critically with his Nerf Bat, pwning you for -100% everything. |
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.07.28 21:23:00 -
[3]
In light of these changes are you going to change the mwd sig radius penalty to something like not being about to turn or orbit when mwd is activated which was mentioned before ? Otherwise close range cruisers are gonna be useless again as they will be sitting ducks and the above change would prevent frigs from orbiting with mwd on autoreapeat too.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.07.28 21:23:00 -
[4]
In light of these changes are you going to change the mwd sig radius penalty to something like not being about to turn or orbit when mwd is activated which was mentioned before ? Otherwise close range cruisers are gonna be useless again as they will be sitting ducks and the above change would prevent frigs from orbiting with mwd on autoreapeat too.
|
Iece Quaan
|
Posted - 2004.07.28 23:07:00 -
[5]
Except that they aren't invulnerable. By a long shot. I thought the same thing till I got my 10mn ab Malediction shot right from under me. Then I went back to mwd.
MWD is still the mod of choice for discerning frig combat pilots. You lose too much trying to fit a 10mn ab in terms of defense and firepower. You go slower than with a mwd, in some cases, slow enough to be caught by missiles. And you're not fast enough for effective catch duty.
The MWD sig penalty isn't really that bad, in the face of the fitting challenges of the 10mn ab. It's a specialty fitting for a bunch of limited-use loadouts. It should stay.
Even AB cruisers suffer crippling powergrid problems using a 100mn AB. Again, a specific-use loadout for a number of limited roles. Most people who want speed cruisers use dual mwd, anyway.
In short, stop nerfing stuff. The End.
--------
|
Iece Quaan
|
Posted - 2004.07.28 23:07:00 -
[6]
Except that they aren't invulnerable. By a long shot. I thought the same thing till I got my 10mn ab Malediction shot right from under me. Then I went back to mwd.
MWD is still the mod of choice for discerning frig combat pilots. You lose too much trying to fit a 10mn ab in terms of defense and firepower. You go slower than with a mwd, in some cases, slow enough to be caught by missiles. And you're not fast enough for effective catch duty.
The MWD sig penalty isn't really that bad, in the face of the fitting challenges of the 10mn ab. It's a specialty fitting for a bunch of limited-use loadouts. It should stay.
Even AB cruisers suffer crippling powergrid problems using a 100mn AB. Again, a specific-use loadout for a number of limited roles. Most people who want speed cruisers use dual mwd, anyway.
In short, stop nerfing stuff. The End.
--------
|
akim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 00:37:00 -
[7]
I don't understand where you get the invulnability part from... Ships with oversized modules are far from that. Their life-expectancy goes up a bit if you fly your ship right yes, but only to the level it's suppose to be at with normal modules. It's not a win button in any way. It's a simple choice of setup that accomodates some players fighting style better than other setups. I'm not trying to flame you. I'm simple trying to get you to understand this. It's realy frustrating to see 200+ posts (fair to say a broad selection of the playerbase) being completely ignored here.
I know you're gonna delete this post aswell. But to stay on topic. Yes all power values on chaos are wrong now.
|
akim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 00:37:00 -
[8]
I don't understand where you get the invulnability part from... Ships with oversized modules are far from that. Their life-expectancy goes up a bit if you fly your ship right yes, but only to the level it's suppose to be at with normal modules. It's not a win button in any way. It's a simple choice of setup that accomodates some players fighting style better than other setups. I'm not trying to flame you. I'm simple trying to get you to understand this. It's realy frustrating to see 200+ posts (fair to say a broad selection of the playerbase) being completely ignored here.
I know you're gonna delete this post aswell. But to stay on topic. Yes all power values on chaos are wrong now.
|
Ris Dnalor
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 00:51:00 -
[9]
Ithink it's a good idea myself :)
--
Jump Drive Operation / Rank 5 / SP: 1280000 of 1280000
|
Ris Dnalor
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 00:51:00 -
[10]
Ithink it's a good idea myself :)
--
Jump Drive Operation / Rank 5 / SP: 1280000 of 1280000
|
Kardim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 00:56:00 -
[11]
tomb.. instead of messing with basics that everyone is framiliar with .. why not just balance these in another way where the cycles last longer but take more cap? where a frig lasts shorter w/ less cap use... and a cruiser lasts longer and more cap use (where you could put on a frigate but not have enough cap to actually use it) etc.... maybe a more usefull way? no since raising all those attributes will somehow raise problems... just an idea
|
Kardim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 00:56:00 -
[12]
tomb.. instead of messing with basics that everyone is framiliar with .. why not just balance these in another way where the cycles last longer but take more cap? where a frig lasts shorter w/ less cap use... and a cruiser lasts longer and more cap use (where you could put on a frigate but not have enough cap to actually use it) etc.... maybe a more usefull way? no since raising all those attributes will somehow raise problems... just an idea
|
Kerosene
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:03:00 -
[13]
I think doubling or tripling cap usage would be the better idea imo.
|
Kerosene
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:03:00 -
[14]
I think doubling or tripling cap usage would be the better idea imo.
|
Iece Quaan
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:14:00 -
[15]
You could increase the cap usage, but not more than it takes to run a MWD.
--------
|
Iece Quaan
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:14:00 -
[16]
You could increase the cap usage, but not more than it takes to run a MWD.
--------
|
Tindel
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:23:00 -
[17]
Fitting a 10ab compared to a 1mwd is just a tradeoff. Low sig radius and less cap usage, but way way way less powergrid and hardly any lowslots left.
Its fine the way it is, lots of people use 1mwd and some use 10ab.
Y helo thar
|
Tindel
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:23:00 -
[18]
Fitting a 10ab compared to a 1mwd is just a tradeoff. Low sig radius and less cap usage, but way way way less powergrid and hardly any lowslots left.
Its fine the way it is, lots of people use 1mwd and some use 10ab.
Y helo thar
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:44:00 -
[19]
10mn ab just needs to give the new missile damage and drone damage penalties to frigs so its the same as 1mn MWD.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:44:00 -
[20]
10mn ab just needs to give the new missile damage and drone damage penalties to frigs so its the same as 1mn MWD.
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:54:00 -
[21]
Why not put a simple restriction on ABs/MWDs, so that they can only be fitted on a particular ship class? Messing with the basics seems like a longer and messeier way.
--------------
 Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 | 
|
Origim
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 01:54:00 -
[22]
Why not put a simple restriction on ABs/MWDs, so that they can only be fitted on a particular ship class? Messing with the basics seems like a longer and messeier way.
--------------
Posting Efficiency / Rank 1 / SP: 68542 of 256000 |
|
Dashi
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 03:57:00 -
[23]
one modual im asking info about specifically, is the large sheild booster, it finds itself on my cruiser, alot
|
Dashi
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 03:57:00 -
[24]
one modual im asking info about specifically, is the large sheild booster, it finds itself on my cruiser, alot
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 04:27:00 -
[25]
I'm missing what the perceived problem is here?
People have been stuffing overpowered afterburners on ships since about 10 minutes after size classed afterburners existed. I have yet to see anyone, carebear or pirate or whatever, complain they are somehow unbalancing.
In general you give up a lot to fit an overpowered AB on a ship so there seems to be balance in doing it and restricting it to specialty applications. Even then an overdriven ship like this is hardly some unbeatable, untouchable force (unless someone has figured a new wrinkle).
In short, all has seemed fine in this regard so why mess with it? If there is a reason then fine but having the whole picture would help the discussion.
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 04:27:00 -
[26]
I'm missing what the perceived problem is here?
People have been stuffing overpowered afterburners on ships since about 10 minutes after size classed afterburners existed. I have yet to see anyone, carebear or pirate or whatever, complain they are somehow unbalancing.
In general you give up a lot to fit an overpowered AB on a ship so there seems to be balance in doing it and restricting it to specialty applications. Even then an overdriven ship like this is hardly some unbeatable, untouchable force (unless someone has figured a new wrinkle).
In short, all has seemed fine in this regard so why mess with it? If there is a reason then fine but having the whole picture would help the discussion.
|
Balthial Ashaere
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 04:39:00 -
[27]
Invulnerable? What the hell are YOU smoking? I've been destroyed using a 100MN Afterburner on my cruiser before; these things do NOT make you any harder to kill than the size down. The only thing they do is give us HALF the boost of a MWD and utilize like damn near ALL of a cruiser's powergrid, when using cruisers as the example that is. You might want to add a third module inbetween the afterburners and microwarpdrives that doesn't have any penalties, has normal fitting requirements, and gives us about a 300% boost or so. Or better yet, remove both microwardpdrives and afterburners, and just create NEW afterburners that give ten times the bonus they do now, so ~300% increase in speed, and function exactly like afterburners do now. That's the kind of speed mod that should be in the game; then just have three versions of THAT for each of the three ship types. I still think this is a pointless and utterly stupid waste of developement time though; no one asked for this "fix" and EVERYONE liked it the way it was. I don't even think I've ever seen this talked about on the forums.
Don't make this change. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Convergent Corporation - Infinite Opportunities; One Future!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Convergent Mining Division - Refining The Foundation Of The Future!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Balthial Ashaere
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 04:39:00 -
[28]
Invulnerable? What the hell are YOU smoking? I've been destroyed using a 100MN Afterburner on my cruiser before; these things do NOT make you any harder to kill than the size down. The only thing they do is give us HALF the boost of a MWD and utilize like damn near ALL of a cruiser's powergrid, when using cruisers as the example that is. You might want to add a third module inbetween the afterburners and microwarpdrives that doesn't have any penalties, has normal fitting requirements, and gives us about a 300% boost or so. Or better yet, remove both microwardpdrives and afterburners, and just create NEW afterburners that give ten times the bonus they do now, so ~300% increase in speed, and function exactly like afterburners do now. That's the kind of speed mod that should be in the game; then just have three versions of THAT for each of the three ship types. I still think this is a pointless and utterly stupid waste of developement time though; no one asked for this "fix" and EVERYONE liked it the way it was. I don't even think I've ever seen this talked about on the forums.
Don't make this change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Convergent Corporation - Infinite Opportunities; One Future!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Convergent Mining Division - Refining The Foundation Of The Future!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
ClawHammer III
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 04:51:00 -
[29]
I like most of the people in this thread and nearly everyone I've talked to on Chaos fail to see a major problem with frigs being able to use a 10MN AB or cruisers using a 100MN AB. Those ships have to make big sacrifices to fit those modules except for the Caracal, Kestrel and other frigate and cruiser missile boats. This was the main argument for the change given by one of the Polaris people that I've talked to.
Why not simply reduce the powergrid on the Caracal and other missile boats and/or increase the powergrid on the frigate and cruiser class missile launchers so that they are more comparable to that of turrets (as was done with Seige Launchers)? That way they will take a significant hit in combat effectiveness as with turret based ships that try to fit oversized AB.
Also fitting an oversized AB doesnĘt make you invulnerable at all. You can still be stasis webbed and when that happens you are screwed.
|
ClawHammer III
|
Posted - 2004.07.29 04:51:00 -
[30]
I like most of the people in this thread and nearly everyone I've talked to on Chaos fail to see a major problem with frigs being able to use a 10MN AB or cruisers using a 100MN AB. Those ships have to make big sacrifices to fit those modules except for the Caracal, Kestrel and other frigate and cruiser missile boats. This was the main argument for the change given by one of the Polaris people that I've talked to.
Why not simply reduce the powergrid on the Caracal and other missile boats and/or increase the powergrid on the frigate and cruiser class missile launchers so that they are more comparable to that of turrets (as was done with Seige Launchers)? That way they will take a significant hit in combat effectiveness as with turret based ships that try to fit oversized AB.
Also fitting an oversized AB doesnĘt make you invulnerable at all. You can still be stasis webbed and when that happens you are screwed.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |