| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
snutt
   |
Posted - 2004.08.01 09:01:00 -
[181]
Seems like most players agree.. it's really really bad idea.. sry for the "flame" now  .. but this will probably be your biggest ****up ever..
Mess with the best, die like the rest 
Real men structure tank |
snutt
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 09:01:00 -
[182]
Seems like most players agree.. it's really really bad idea.. sry for the "flame" now .. but this will probably be your biggest ****up ever..
Mess with the best, die like the rest
Real men structure tank |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 09:06:00 -
[183]
I think the change is needed but it should simply be prevented by making them un*****ble on the wrong class ship.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 09:06:00 -
[184]
I think the change is needed but it should simply be prevented by making them un*****ble on the wrong class ship.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Kelly O'Connor
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 12:48:00 -
[185]
 Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I think the change is needed but it should simply be prevented by making them un*****ble on the wrong class ship.
A change may be needed.
This change IS NOT needed.
|
Kelly O'Connor
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 12:48:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I think the change is needed but it should simply be prevented by making them un*****ble on the wrong class ship.
A change may be needed.
This change IS NOT needed.
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 16:31:00 -
[187]
I've spent the day flying around in frigates equipped with a 10mn AB and anyone claiming it weakens your overall setup is clearly overstating the case.
Kestrel with 2 micro aux, 10mn ab, 1 ebber, 1 warp jammer, and 4 standard missile launchers? That's about as powerful as a kestrel can get.
Tristan/Punisher/Incursus is the same - your power output is barely dropped in relation to the benefits you gain such no sig. radius penalties & better cap.
The only downside is a lack of acceleration from the 10MN AB compared to the 1MN MWD but, again, it's not so bad.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 16:31:00 -
[188]
I've spent the day flying around in frigates equipped with a 10mn AB and anyone claiming it weakens your overall setup is clearly overstating the case.
Kestrel with 2 micro aux, 10mn ab, 1 ebber, 1 warp jammer, and 4 standard missile launchers? That's about as powerful as a kestrel can get.
Tristan/Punisher/Incursus is the same - your power output is barely dropped in relation to the benefits you gain such no sig. radius penalties & better cap.
The only downside is a lack of acceleration from the 10MN AB compared to the 1MN MWD but, again, it's not so bad.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 17:00:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Def Antares on 01/08/2004 17:02:24
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I've spent the day flying around in frigates equipped with a 10mn AB and anyone claiming it weakens your overall setup is clearly overstating the case.
Kestrel with 2 micro aux, 10mn ab, 1 ebber, 1 warp jammer, and 4 standard missile launchers? That's about as powerful as a kestrel can get.
Tristan/Punisher/Incursus is the same - your power output is barely dropped in relation to the benefits you gain such no sig. radius penalties & better cap.
The only downside is a lack of acceleration from the 10MN AB compared to the 1MN MWD but, again, it's not so bad.
other downsides i can think of in no time is that the maximum speed is not as fast as with the MWD, that you cant fit a ballistic control, or armor repairer or that you cant fit an assault missile launcher (wait, not intended?). med shield booster would also not be possible to fit.
so it's what i said, flexibility and power against survivability.
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 17:00:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Def Antares on 01/08/2004 17:02:24
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
I've spent the day flying around in frigates equipped with a 10mn AB and anyone claiming it weakens your overall setup is clearly overstating the case.
Kestrel with 2 micro aux, 10mn ab, 1 ebber, 1 warp jammer, and 4 standard missile launchers? That's about as powerful as a kestrel can get.
Tristan/Punisher/Incursus is the same - your power output is barely dropped in relation to the benefits you gain such no sig. radius penalties & better cap.
The only downside is a lack of acceleration from the 10MN AB compared to the 1MN MWD but, again, it's not so bad.
other downsides i can think of in no time is that the maximum speed is not as fast as with the MWD, that you cant fit a ballistic control, or armor repairer or that you cant fit an assault missile launcher (wait, not intended?). med shield booster would also not be possible to fit.
so it's what i said, flexibility and power against survivability.
|
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 18:57:00 -
[191]
I dont like this for one more thing: one of best feature of Eve, freedom of fitting is getting seriously damaged.
I mean we are really going the direction in wich you can only fit ships in one way.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.08.01 18:57:00 -
[192]
I dont like this for one more thing: one of best feature of Eve, freedom of fitting is getting seriously damaged.
I mean we are really going the direction in wich you can only fit ships in one way.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 02:10:00 -
[193]
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 -
[194]
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 |
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 02:16:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Originally by: Iece Quaan
You changed the power requirements for armor hp+ modules.
I can't properly articulate how ****ed off I am right now.
Cant fit 400mm armor plates on frigates anymore, which IS a stupid idea. Only the above-size abs needed to be removed, thats all. \
Seriously, all you guys needed to do was make drones have an optimal range, make afterburners better, and take away larger abs from frigs/cruisers, and then make cruisers and cruiser guns worth using.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 02:16:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Originally by: Iece Quaan
You changed the power requirements for armor hp+ modules.
I can't properly articulate how ****ed off I am right now.
Cant fit 400mm armor plates on frigates anymore, which IS a stupid idea. Only the above-size abs needed to be removed, thats all. \
Seriously, all you guys needed to do was make drones have an optimal range, make afterburners better, and take away larger abs from frigs/cruisers, and then make cruisers and cruiser guns worth using.
|
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 04:18:00 -
[197]
I gotta hop on the bad-idea bandwagon. Given the cost in terms of both active defensive systems and offensive hardware when you waste a ton of low slots and grid on a 10MN AB, and considering that you still go a fair bit slower than you do with a MWD I dont see these things as a problem.
The problem, imo, is 2xMWD setups. There just is no viable setup that can counter them reasonably unless you bring 3 frigates with webbers to chase them down. Granted, they are good for bassically nothing but mass-ganking the occasional unfortunate soul that they can isolate from support, but it still strikes me as unbalanced.
And the over-sized afterburner thing certainly had never seemed to make anyone invulnerable to me. Ive killed frigs and cruisers with 10/100mn ABs as well as getting my own frigs and cruisers killed with similar setups.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 04:18:00 -
[198]
I gotta hop on the bad-idea bandwagon. Given the cost in terms of both active defensive systems and offensive hardware when you waste a ton of low slots and grid on a 10MN AB, and considering that you still go a fair bit slower than you do with a MWD I dont see these things as a problem.
The problem, imo, is 2xMWD setups. There just is no viable setup that can counter them reasonably unless you bring 3 frigates with webbers to chase them down. Granted, they are good for bassically nothing but mass-ganking the occasional unfortunate soul that they can isolate from support, but it still strikes me as unbalanced.
And the over-sized afterburner thing certainly had never seemed to make anyone invulnerable to me. Ive killed frigs and cruisers with 10/100mn ABs as well as getting my own frigs and cruisers killed with similar setups.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 09:07:00 -
[199]
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).
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 09:07:00 -
[200]
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).
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 09:19:00 -
[201]
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 -
[202]
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 |
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 10:58:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Armor plates are a really really good reason for the pg changes actually.
armor plates > shield extender, and sorry frigs with 1k armor aren't funny..... unless you can get a frig with 1k shield too.
The grid changes fixes a few problems with fitting issues, it's a good change. |
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 10:58:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Armor plates are a really really good reason for the pg changes actually.
armor plates > shield extender, and sorry frigs with 1k armor aren't funny..... unless you can get a frig with 1k shield too.
The grid changes fixes a few problems with fitting issues, it's a good change. |
Jade Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 11:58:00 -
[205]
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 -
[206]
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 |
Cykur
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 13:16:00 -
[207]
If oversized modules / afterburners are so game imbalancing, or if they don't fit the "vision", just set a variable to prevent them from being used on too small a ship frame. ie. you get a message that says, "Your ship's hull is not big enough to fit this module."
Please don't mess with all the grid numbers in the game.......
|
Cykur
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 13:16:00 -
[208]
If oversized modules / afterburners are so game imbalancing, or if they don't fit the "vision", just set a variable to prevent them from being used on too small a ship frame. ie. you get a message that says, "Your ship's hull is not big enough to fit this module."
Please don't mess with all the grid numbers in the game.......
|
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 14:00:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
My point is, there's a lot of modules with unbalanced fitting reqs, which can unrightly be used by frigs, when they shouldn't.
PG changes fixes that.
And yes, armor plates should require a lot more pg anyway. 500grid for 1600plates is a joke. |
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2004.08.02 14:00:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
My point is, there's a lot of modules with unbalanced fitting reqs, which can unrightly be used by frigs, when they shouldn't.
PG changes fixes that.
And yes, armor plates should require a lot more pg anyway. 500grid for 1600plates is a joke. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |