| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
   |
Posted - 2004.08.02 02:10:00 -
[1]
This is a very bad idea.
It restricts freedom of choice and makes the game less interesting. Players have been training skills to high levels to ease fitting limitations to make ununusal configurations possible. By bring in this sweeping change you undo a lot of specialisation and reduce the outfitting of starships into a more boring run-of-the-mill game.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 02:10:00 -
[2]
This is a very bad idea.
It restricts freedom of choice and makes the game less interesting. Players have been training skills to high levels to ease fitting limitations to make ununusal configurations possible. By bring in this sweeping change you undo a lot of specialisation and reduce the outfitting of starships into a more boring run-of-the-mill game.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 09:19:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Face facts, guys, TomB doesn't want you to avoid the sig. radius penalty when you're moving quickly or else it is going to screw up his missile/drone balancing.
You cannot have speed without a penalty, basically, and the supposed fitting problems do not making up the lack of sig. radius penalty.
The penalties are there for a reason and I for one am glad TomB is making this change (but not the way he's doing it).
Josh, you are not "avoiding" the sig.radius penalty with a clever finesse, you are paying additional grid at a sacrifice to other systems to fit a less responsive and costlier alternative to a frigate mwd. But thats only a tiny part of the system. The problem here is that to correct a weakness in the combat system numbers he (TOMB) is playing around with ideas that muck around with all the powergrid and fitting numbers in all modules and considering a nerf of all oversized modules across the board.
There is no free lunch here.
When I want to fit a 400mm armour plate on a frigate there are sacrifices to be made (micro power aux units and power diags). When I want a 1600 plate (or large shield extender) on a cruiser there are sacrifices to be made also.
The system as stands is balanced and encourages the experimentation with different unusual fittings for an interesting and varied game.
If people are all bent out of shape over the 10mw/100mw afterburner fittings on frigates and cruisers then address that and that alone with a simple tweak.
(give them a signature size penalty on the fitting ship at the equivilent penalty to mwd. ie, if 10mw burner on a frigate is about 80% as fast as a mwd then give it a %400 sig nerf to compensate and allow it to be hit).
There are still reasons to fit it if you can (no cap penalty or shield penalty).
But this type of sweeping change to nerf the entire concept of outsized modules over one weakness in the tracking calc system is poorly thought out.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 09:19:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Face facts, guys, TomB doesn't want you to avoid the sig. radius penalty when you're moving quickly or else it is going to screw up his missile/drone balancing.
You cannot have speed without a penalty, basically, and the supposed fitting problems do not making up the lack of sig. radius penalty.
The penalties are there for a reason and I for one am glad TomB is making this change (but not the way he's doing it).
Josh, you are not "avoiding" the sig.radius penalty with a clever finesse, you are paying additional grid at a sacrifice to other systems to fit a less responsive and costlier alternative to a frigate mwd. But thats only a tiny part of the system. The problem here is that to correct a weakness in the combat system numbers he (TOMB) is playing around with ideas that muck around with all the powergrid and fitting numbers in all modules and considering a nerf of all oversized modules across the board.
There is no free lunch here.
When I want to fit a 400mm armour plate on a frigate there are sacrifices to be made (micro power aux units and power diags). When I want a 1600 plate (or large shield extender) on a cruiser there are sacrifices to be made also.
The system as stands is balanced and encourages the experimentation with different unusual fittings for an interesting and varied game.
If people are all bent out of shape over the 10mw/100mw afterburner fittings on frigates and cruisers then address that and that alone with a simple tweak.
(give them a signature size penalty on the fitting ship at the equivilent penalty to mwd. ie, if 10mw burner on a frigate is about 80% as fast as a mwd then give it a %400 sig nerf to compensate and allow it to be hit).
There are still reasons to fit it if you can (no cap penalty or shield penalty).
But this type of sweeping change to nerf the entire concept of outsized modules over one weakness in the tracking calc system is poorly thought out.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 11:58:00 -
[5]
Quote:
Armor plates are a really really good reason for the pg changes actually.
Why is that? The armour plates have a grid requirement, I haven't heard anybody complaining about that number so far. It seems to me you are simply complaining about a clever use of a balanced system to produce a well armoured frigate.
Interceptors cost as much as cruisers ... why shouldn't you be able to make them more survivable if you wish to trade off that protection with the need for micro power aux units?
Quote:
armor plates > shield extender, and sorry frigs with 1k armor aren't funny..... unless you can get a frig with 1k shield too.
I don't see your point.
Quote:
The grid changes fixes a few problems with fitting issues, it's a good change.
I think you are blindly supporting the further limiting of fitting options and variety in combat.
JF Public Forum |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 11:58:00 -
[6]
Quote:
Armor plates are a really really good reason for the pg changes actually.
Why is that? The armour plates have a grid requirement, I haven't heard anybody complaining about that number so far. It seems to me you are simply complaining about a clever use of a balanced system to produce a well armoured frigate.
Interceptors cost as much as cruisers ... why shouldn't you be able to make them more survivable if you wish to trade off that protection with the need for micro power aux units?
Quote:
armor plates > shield extender, and sorry frigs with 1k armor aren't funny..... unless you can get a frig with 1k shield too.
I don't see your point.
Quote:
The grid changes fixes a few problems with fitting issues, it's a good change.
I think you are blindly supporting the further limiting of fitting options and variety in combat.
JF Public Forum |
| |
|