| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zu Lu
   |
Posted - 2004.07.28 21:23:00 -
[1]
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 -
[2]
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 - 2004.08.04 15:14:00 -
[3]
I think that not allowing to fit an AB on ship class it is not designed for is a good thing if the mwd signature radius is either changed or toned down a lot so it doesn't make frigs and cruisers sitting ducks. I thought that the sig radius penalty when mwd activated was just supposed to make you as big a target as if you were travelling your 'normal' non mwd speeds but hasn't seemed to turn out that way. There was no point in even considering and implementing the initial mwd nerf as everyone fits oversized AB now anyway.
Missile based ships don't really have many drawbacks in fitting oversized AB and people who are complaining that diversity will be taken away - where is the diversity in EVERYONE fitting oversized AB ??
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 15:14:00 -
[4]
I think that not allowing to fit an AB on ship class it is not designed for is a good thing if the mwd signature radius is either changed or toned down a lot so it doesn't make frigs and cruisers sitting ducks. I thought that the sig radius penalty when mwd activated was just supposed to make you as big a target as if you were travelling your 'normal' non mwd speeds but hasn't seemed to turn out that way. There was no point in even considering and implementing the initial mwd nerf as everyone fits oversized AB now anyway.
Missile based ships don't really have many drawbacks in fitting oversized AB and people who are complaining that diversity will be taken away - where is the diversity in EVERYONE fitting oversized AB ??
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 18:13:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Zu Lu on 04/08/2004 18:15:36
 Originally by: Def Antares
Edited by: Def Antares on 04/08/2004 16:04:30
Originally by: Zu Lu
Missile based ships don't really have many drawbacks in fitting oversized AB and people who are complaining that diversity will be taken away - where is the diversity in EVERYONE fitting oversized AB ??
i'd say not everyone but mainly people with high engineering / AB skills, or fragile ships that dont require too much power to operate guns.
regarding missile ships: I can only talk about the crow here ... it can't really fight other ints, because they can easily outfly it's missiles anyway. Additionally, if you force it to fit a MWD subtract 25% form it's shields, that's the only thing where it's strong. compare the armor / hull (not reduced by MWD) of the other Ints to it please.
CROW
shield (mwd) 375 (281)
armor 175
hull 250
total HP (mwd): 800 (706)
TARANIS
shield (mwd) 225 (168)
armor 325
hull 500
total HP (mwd): 1050 (993)
CRUSADER
shield (mwd) 175 (131)
armor 425
hull 425
total HP (mwd): 1025 (981)
to be noted here that the other ints use mainly weapons that have heat or em damage, which the shield is especially vulnerable to. the sig penalty of the mwd even making you even easier to be hit by gun-inters. also a crusader can fit armor plates due to it's extra lowslot easily, and every int pilot i know fits an armor repairer per default, regardless of the ship, so the argument that shield recharges itself doesnt count ;-)
all in all the "missile ships" you complain about are the weakest and turly are the ones hurt most by the MWD penalties.
edit: these are base values without mechanic, armor or shield skills, but the overall relation remains the same. so diverstity is given, as a crusader pilot i wouldnt hesitate to fit a mwd as much as with a crow.
At this stage in the game lots and lots of people have high or max engineering skills and besiedes it is not a high ranking skill.
The mwd -25% to shield and not affecting armor is a another matter i feel and we cant just look at interceptors when discussing about the balance of oversized afterburners. What i meant was that missile based ships in general need less grid for their weapons so it can be easier for them to fit an oversized ab, the Caracal is a good example of this.
In regards to your point on damage types - Lasers are the only ones that are mainly em/thermal. Hybrid and projectile ammo is good across the board against shield and armor.
BTW i said the missile based ships mostly find it easier to shoehorn an oversized ab and i didnt say that shield based ships were not hardest hit by using a mwd.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 18:13:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Zu Lu on 04/08/2004 18:15:36
Originally by: Def Antares
Edited by: Def Antares on 04/08/2004 16:04:30
Originally by: Zu Lu
Missile based ships don't really have many drawbacks in fitting oversized AB and people who are complaining that diversity will be taken away - where is the diversity in EVERYONE fitting oversized AB ??
i'd say not everyone but mainly people with high engineering / AB skills, or fragile ships that dont require too much power to operate guns.
regarding missile ships: I can only talk about the crow here ... it can't really fight other ints, because they can easily outfly it's missiles anyway. Additionally, if you force it to fit a MWD subtract 25% form it's shields, that's the only thing where it's strong. compare the armor / hull (not reduced by MWD) of the other Ints to it please.
CROW
shield (mwd) 375 (281)
armor 175
hull 250
total HP (mwd): 800 (706)
TARANIS
shield (mwd) 225 (168)
armor 325
hull 500
total HP (mwd): 1050 (993)
CRUSADER
shield (mwd) 175 (131)
armor 425
hull 425
total HP (mwd): 1025 (981)
to be noted here that the other ints use mainly weapons that have heat or em damage, which the shield is especially vulnerable to. the sig penalty of the mwd even making you even easier to be hit by gun-inters. also a crusader can fit armor plates due to it's extra lowslot easily, and every int pilot i know fits an armor repairer per default, regardless of the ship, so the argument that shield recharges itself doesnt count ;-)
all in all the "missile ships" you complain about are the weakest and turly are the ones hurt most by the MWD penalties.
edit: these are base values without mechanic, armor or shield skills, but the overall relation remains the same. so diverstity is given, as a crusader pilot i wouldnt hesitate to fit a mwd as much as with a crow.
At this stage in the game lots and lots of people have high or max engineering skills and besiedes it is not a high ranking skill.
The mwd -25% to shield and not affecting armor is a another matter i feel and we cant just look at interceptors when discussing about the balance of oversized afterburners. What i meant was that missile based ships in general need less grid for their weapons so it can be easier for them to fit an oversized ab, the Caracal is a good example of this.
In regards to your point on damage types - Lasers are the only ones that are mainly em/thermal. Hybrid and projectile ammo is good across the board against shield and armor.
BTW i said the missile based ships mostly find it easier to shoehorn an oversized ab and i didnt say that shield based ships were not hardest hit by using a mwd.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 19:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Def Antares
Originally by: Zu Lu
BTW i said the missile based ships mostly find it easier to shoehorn an oversized ab and i didnt say that shield based ships were not hardest hit by using a mwd.
Well your conclusion was that everybody would fit oversized ABs, and no one would fit MWD. And this would hit diversity. My argumentation was that the Crow would benefit most of an AB vs MWD, and the Crusader least. So on a Crusader it would make perfectly sense if you fit an MWD, diversity restored.
Because of sig radius penalty (and other penalties) loads of frigs and cruisers are fitting oversized ab's - fact. It is not as easy for the amarrian ships to do this because their weapons take a lot of grid- if it's possible to do on their particular ship then they probably will use an oversized ab - well i know i would.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying but feel it not entirely balanced as it is....
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 19:36:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Def Antares
Originally by: Zu Lu
BTW i said the missile based ships mostly find it easier to shoehorn an oversized ab and i didnt say that shield based ships were not hardest hit by using a mwd.
Well your conclusion was that everybody would fit oversized ABs, and no one would fit MWD. And this would hit diversity. My argumentation was that the Crow would benefit most of an AB vs MWD, and the Crusader least. So on a Crusader it would make perfectly sense if you fit an MWD, diversity restored.
Because of sig radius penalty (and other penalties) loads of frigs and cruisers are fitting oversized ab's - fact. It is not as easy for the amarrian ships to do this because their weapons take a lot of grid- if it's possible to do on their particular ship then they probably will use an oversized ab - well i know i would.
I am not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying but feel it not entirely balanced as it is....
|
| |
|