| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Selim
   |
Posted - 2004.08.04 09:58:00 -
[241]
 Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 04/08/2004 08:33:57
Originally by: TomB
The power changes have been taken back, ships using oversized modules will be looked at after upcoming patch.
Will be looking at other options for making all/most speed modules usable and fixing the oversized AB problem.
Please give feedback on wrong power values in this thread from Chaos testing.
\o/
Make AB's give a 75% speed boost as a basic stat then apply the AB skill to that.
But not before the missile changes...
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 09:58:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Joshua Calvert
Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 04/08/2004 08:33:57
Originally by: TomB
The power changes have been taken back, ships using oversized modules will be looked at after upcoming patch.
Will be looking at other options for making all/most speed modules usable and fixing the oversized AB problem.
Please give feedback on wrong power values in this thread from Chaos testing.
\o/
Make AB's give a 75% speed boost as a basic stat then apply the AB skill to that.
But not before the missile changes...
|
Frost88
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 10:02:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Spec 593357629
Edited by: Spec 593357629 on 03/08/2004 08:50:56
Damn Was hopping to fit a 10mn aft on my interceptor. Now i guess im outa luck. I know its for game balence and, by the way guns are fine. Just work on those missles.
I know allot of BS players whine cus they cant hit friggies, but us small ship pilots need all the help we can get. Chances are if you run into batleships in a frig your dead meat, if you try and fight. The fact is without a mwd the frigate becomes a useless combat ship it and in no way can match anything out there.
I think the less batleships we have in combat the beter. we need mor varied roles in combat a all out bs fleet is boring as hell. It Dosnt leave not much room for newer pilots to enjoy the fun of player combat. I think this is an essential part of this game
In a small ship you need to react fast and be able to pull out of combat just as fast. With no mwd small ships will become drone food every time.
If you going to nerf interceptors, then please switch the bonus to something other than signature radius. It makes no sence to buld a stealthy fighter if it cant move in combat. and 600ms isnt moving enough
ps last thing i promis the sig penalty given to cruisers and batleships dont realy hut as much as to frigates and especially interceptors
Amen to that.
------------------------------------------------
I've always owned Kehmor, cheap as chips off Ebay
|
Frost88
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 10:02:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Spec 593357629
Edited by: Spec 593357629 on 03/08/2004 08:50:56
Damn Was hopping to fit a 10mn aft on my interceptor. Now i guess im outa luck. I know its for game balence and, by the way guns are fine. Just work on those missles.
I know allot of BS players whine cus they cant hit friggies, but us small ship pilots need all the help we can get. Chances are if you run into batleships in a frig your dead meat, if you try and fight. The fact is without a mwd the frigate becomes a useless combat ship it and in no way can match anything out there.
I think the less batleships we have in combat the beter. we need mor varied roles in combat a all out bs fleet is boring as hell. It Dosnt leave not much room for newer pilots to enjoy the fun of player combat. I think this is an essential part of this game
In a small ship you need to react fast and be able to pull out of combat just as fast. With no mwd small ships will become drone food every time.
If you going to nerf interceptors, then please switch the bonus to something other than signature radius. It makes no sence to buld a stealthy fighter if it cant move in combat. and 600ms isnt moving enough
ps last thing i promis the sig penalty given to cruisers and batleships dont realy hut as much as to frigates and especially interceptors
Amen to that.
------------------------------------------------
I've always owned Kehmor, cheap as chips off Ebay
|
rowbin hod
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 10:24:00 -
[245]
Originally by: TomB
NTThe power changes have been taken back, ships using oversized modules will be looked at after upcoming patch.
Yay!
I think (hope  ) this is a genuine example of CCP listening to their customers. Far and away the best way of dealing with this situation is to "fix" the only real problem, which is oversized ABs. Changing the whole powergrid system wasn't a good idea.
Thanks TomB!!
---
"Due to the European lard shortage, we are currently unable to supply this product." |
rowbin hod
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 10:24:00 -
[246]
Originally by: TomB
NTThe power changes have been taken back, ships using oversized modules will be looked at after upcoming patch.
Yay!
I think (hope ) this is a genuine example of CCP listening to their customers. Far and away the best way of dealing with this situation is to "fix" the only real problem, which is oversized ABs. Changing the whole powergrid system wasn't a good idea.
Thanks TomB!!
---
"Due to the European lard shortage, we are currently unable to supply this product." |
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 10:38:00 -
[247]
What I'd like to see in the AB/MWD area:
As someone (Josh?) suggested, boost ABs to give +75% base speed, and change the Afterburner skill to give a +5% per level bonus to that. This would make single ABs useful and not a waste of midslots, while still keeping game balance.
To combat the "stack multiple MWDs/ABs to reach ridiculous speeds" problem (and yes, I think it's a problem that needs to be solved if we're to have any hope of a balanced game): change the way the speed is calculated.
Currently everything multiplies, so if you have base speed 250 and two MWDs, you'd get 250 * 5 * 5 = 6250 m/s (ignoring all skills and other multipliers here). I propose that be changed so that all the percentual bonuses (and negative mods) are first summed together, and then this final bonus is used to multiply the base speed.
In the example above, this would give 250 * (5 + 5) = 2500 m/s for dual MWDs. Still a nice boost from the single MWD (which would be 1250 m/s in this scenario), but nothing game-breaking.
This change would let people play around with oversized ABs, but would remove the worst game-breaking effects of stacking them. One 100mn AB on a cruiser does not make it semi-impossible to hit. Two do.
As I've said before, I really don't think single oversized ABs are a problem, I think it's the stacked multiples and the way the game calculates the final speed that are the problem.
Opinions?
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 10:38:00 -
[248]
What I'd like to see in the AB/MWD area:
As someone (Josh?) suggested, boost ABs to give +75% base speed, and change the Afterburner skill to give a +5% per level bonus to that. This would make single ABs useful and not a waste of midslots, while still keeping game balance.
To combat the "stack multiple MWDs/ABs to reach ridiculous speeds" problem (and yes, I think it's a problem that needs to be solved if we're to have any hope of a balanced game): change the way the speed is calculated.
Currently everything multiplies, so if you have base speed 250 and two MWDs, you'd get 250 * 5 * 5 = 6250 m/s (ignoring all skills and other multipliers here). I propose that be changed so that all the percentual bonuses (and negative mods) are first summed together, and then this final bonus is used to multiply the base speed.
In the example above, this would give 250 * (5 + 5) = 2500 m/s for dual MWDs. Still a nice boost from the single MWD (which would be 1250 m/s in this scenario), but nothing game-breaking.
This change would let people play around with oversized ABs, but would remove the worst game-breaking effects of stacking them. One 100mn AB on a cruiser does not make it semi-impossible to hit. Two do.
As I've said before, I really don't think single oversized ABs are a problem, I think it's the stacked multiples and the way the game calculates the final speed that are the problem.
Opinions?
|
lady raven
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 12:17:00 -
[249]
7 pages of reading and its time to reply. My solution would be to give each ship a maximum 'safe' velocity. If you travel over that speed you start taking hull damage. but only while you are traveling above the speed. Even if it could be countered with a small hull repairer(which of course costs cap, power grid, cpu and a slot).
You could use it for "omgwtf... 10 battleships.... get us out of here now!!!!!" type situations.
|
lady raven
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 12:17:00 -
[250]
7 pages of reading and its time to reply. My solution would be to give each ship a maximum 'safe' velocity. If you travel over that speed you start taking hull damage. but only while you are traveling above the speed. Even if it could be countered with a small hull repairer(which of course costs cap, power grid, cpu and a slot).
You could use it for "omgwtf... 10 battleships.... get us out of here now!!!!!" type situations.
|
Tar om
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 12:33:00 -
[251]
Just leave it as it is. If you want to further nerf the missile boats, then do it by reducing their grid. I'm not sure its required though - its not like they're mounting cruise anymore.. right?
--
We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net
http://www.serenitymovie.com |
Tar om
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 12:33:00 -
[252]
Just leave it as it is. If you want to further nerf the missile boats, then do it by reducing their grid. I'm not sure its required though - its not like they're mounting cruise anymore.. right?
--
We are the Octavian Vanguard www.octavianvanguard.net
http://www.serenitymovie.com |
Chepe Nolon
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 13:01:00 -
[253]
Why can't the ab's be upgraded to give 200% speedboost? Like today, it's hardly anything that gains a tactical benefit from 40-50% speed increase. But then the microwarpdrives really should give a speedboost worth the name. Like 5x to 10x the speed (depends on skill), but give agility a penalty of something like -99.99% (so you really can only move in a straight line when activated). And of course permanent negative boni, like cap, shield etc nerf This would at least give it a meaning fitting on a megaT for getting quick into battle, or the minmatar hit'n run tactics. With an agility of close to zero, you still can avoid being hit by the charging mega or tempest.
|
Chepe Nolon
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 13:01:00 -
[254]
Why can't the ab's be upgraded to give 200% speedboost? Like today, it's hardly anything that gains a tactical benefit from 40-50% speed increase. But then the microwarpdrives really should give a speedboost worth the name. Like 5x to 10x the speed (depends on skill), but give agility a penalty of something like -99.99% (so you really can only move in a straight line when activated). And of course permanent negative boni, like cap, shield etc nerf This would at least give it a meaning fitting on a megaT for getting quick into battle, or the minmatar hit'n run tactics. With an agility of close to zero, you still can avoid being hit by the charging mega or tempest.
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 13:57:00 -
[255]
Originally by: lady raven
You could use it for "omgwtf... 10 battleships.... get us out of here now!!!!!" type situations.
warp drive active?
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 13:57:00 -
[256]
Originally by: lady raven
You could use it for "omgwtf... 10 battleships.... get us out of here now!!!!!" type situations.
warp drive active?
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 15:14:00 -
[257]
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 -
[258]
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 ??
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 15:44:00 -
[259]
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.
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 15:44:00 -
[260]
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.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 18:13:00 -
[261]
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 -
[262]
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.
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 18:58:00 -
[263]
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.
|
Def Antares
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 18:58:00 -
[264]
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.
|
Zu Lu
|
Posted - 2004.08.04 19:36:00 -
[265]
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 -
[266]
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....
|
WhiteTiger
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 01:24:00 -
[267]
Maybe I missed it but has anyone pointed what in my opinion is the real answer to what the percived problem is? Most of this seems to center around using oversized afterburners to go fast.
The way afterburners where made class specific in the first place makes no physical sense and makes the description confusing. Instead of using the ship's weight to modify the TOP SPEED it should have been used to modify the ACCELERATION of the ship to new top speed. This makes much more physical sense and would have largely fixed the problem.
If it where done this way a x% increase in top speed would mean x% increase regardless of the size of afterburner or weight of the ship. What would change would be how fast the ship goes to the new top speed. Using a undersized unit would increase the top speed but it would take a very long time to reach top speed. Using a oversized unit wouldn't give any extra speed boost, but would make the ship accelerate very fast.
|
WhiteTiger
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 01:24:00 -
[268]
Maybe I missed it but has anyone pointed what in my opinion is the real answer to what the percived problem is? Most of this seems to center around using oversized afterburners to go fast.
The way afterburners where made class specific in the first place makes no physical sense and makes the description confusing. Instead of using the ship's weight to modify the TOP SPEED it should have been used to modify the ACCELERATION of the ship to new top speed. This makes much more physical sense and would have largely fixed the problem.
If it where done this way a x% increase in top speed would mean x% increase regardless of the size of afterburner or weight of the ship. What would change would be how fast the ship goes to the new top speed. Using a undersized unit would increase the top speed but it would take a very long time to reach top speed. Using a oversized unit wouldn't give any extra speed boost, but would make the ship accelerate very fast.
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 16:49:00 -
[269]
There is something WRONG when you need to use SPEED as DEFENCE on a CRUISER!!!
"We brake for nobody"
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.08.05 16:49:00 -
[270]
There is something WRONG when you need to use SPEED as DEFENCE on a CRUISER!!!
"We brake for nobody"
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |