Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 22:58:00 -
[1]
Here my reasoning : is there a reason not to put afterburners/microwarpdrives, or one not to leave them on all the time? I believe most players prefer to have them on their ships because it makes STL flight more bearable and makes their ships a lot harder to hit. Now, ships without them are at great disadvantage in combat, so theses modules tend to be mandatory...
What if those modules had a drawback (other than draining capacitor)? I think the one that would be obvious would be to reduce manouverability, meaning the ship capability to turn is reduced. That would make sense realistically and also make theses device usuful at closing the gap or getting away, but not at circling around at close range from the target.
|
Leora Nomen
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Foraven Here my reasoning : is there a reason not to put afterburners/microwarpdrives, or one not to leave them on all the time? I believe most players prefer to have them on their ships because it makes STL flight more bearable and makes their ships a lot harder to hit. Now, ships without them are at great disadvantage in combat, so theses modules tend to be mandatory...
What if those modules had a drawback (other than draining capacitor)? I think the one that would be obvious would be to reduce manouverability, meaning the ship capability to turn is reduced. That would make sense realistically and also make theses device usuful at closing the gap or getting away, but not at circling around at close range from the target.
Well, that is precisely what they do right now. By, you know, increasing the mass of the ship? Try fitting a 10 mn AB on a destroyer, or a 100 mn AB on a cruiser or BC, and you will see what I mean. guide to game time codes |
Grarr Wrexx
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:40:00 -
[3]
I dunno, I think taking a quarter of their capacitor and increasing their signature radius by 500% is big enough of a drawback already.
|
Komi Toran
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Foraven What if those modules had a drawback (other than draining capacitor)? I think the one that would be obvious would be to reduce manouverability, meaning the ship capability to turn is reduced. That would make sense realistically and also make theses device usuful at closing the gap or getting away, but not at circling around at close range from the target.
A) that already happens in game and B) that's not realistic at all, as the only way ships turn in space is by thrust, and as you don't see maneuvering jets on any of the ships, that means thrust vectoring from the main engines. More thrust therefore = faster turns (even if they are wider). Fortunately, realism isn't the best measure of how things should happen in game.
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:44:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Foraven on 01/12/2009 00:44:15
Originally by: Grarr Wrexx I dunno, I think taking a quarter of their capacitor and increasing their signature radius by 500% is big enough of a drawback already.
Still don't prevent anyone from keeping them on a while, even while fighting. I don't think many consider not using AB or MWD in combat (especially PVP). What i want with my changes is to make them what we use to close in or get away, but not during the combat itself. Capacitor is rarely an issue unless the fight drag on while.
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:56:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Foraven on 01/12/2009 00:56:10
Originally by: Komi Toran
Originally by: Foraven What if those modules had a drawback (other than draining capacitor)? I think the one that would be obvious would be to reduce manouverability, meaning the ship capability to turn is reduced. That would make sense realistically and also make theses device usuful at closing the gap or getting away, but not at circling around at close range from the target.
A) that already happens in game and B) that's not realistic at all, as the only way ships turn in space is by thrust, and as you don't see maneuvering jets on any of the ships, that means thrust vectoring from the main engines. More thrust therefore = faster turns (even if they are wider). Fortunately, realism isn't the best measure of how things should happen in game.
Nah, you can change the heading of a ship without thrusters (require some thinkering though, and not as fast either), what you can't do is change trajectory without thrust. What does prevent sharp turns is inertia and how much thrust is needed to do it. Turn too fast and the ship may break appart, and use too much thrust and you run out of fuel quickly... Neither affect us in the game though.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 01:18:00 -
[7]
What exactly is the point of a drawback? MWD already has a drawback, and the bonus of an AB isn't so amazing that it deserves a drawback.
|
Komi Toran
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 01:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Foraven Edited by: Foraven on 01/12/2009 00:44:15 Still don't prevent anyone from keeping them on a while, even while fighting. I don't think many consider not using AB or MWD in combat (especially PVP). What i want with my changes is to make them what we use to close in or get away, but not during the combat itself. Capacitor is rarely an issue unless the fight drag on while.
Define "a while." There are so many hedge words in there that your statement is meaningless. It basically sounds to me as if you are defining the length of an engagement based on when capacitor is an issue, and then turning around and saying capacitor is not an issue except in those newly defined 'extended' engagements.
And no, from personal experience, there are lots of time in combat when you have to manage a MWD. There are precious few valid PvP fits that can have you running a MWD non-stop while still doing your job in combat. So, most people actually do use MWDs to close or escape, not to fight. Hence, your complaint about them is unsupported.
Afterburners, yes, they can be run non-stop on a number of ships and setups no problem. However, ABs aren't used as much in PvP. They certainly aren't as popular as MWD, which should tell you that ABs aren't overpowered. In fact, CCP is still looking at ways to make ABs more popular in PvP, not less. Since ABs aren't overpowered, there's no conceivable reason to nerf them.
|
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:59:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Misanthra on 01/12/2009 14:06:30 MWD has enough drawback...turns your fit to crap power wise on ships. Making dps fits harder. Needs high evasive maneuvre to follow a tight orbit and really works well only with agility rigs and a nanoframe in a low as well.
Certain ships need mwd all through engagement. Inty is one. Don't take much to pop one and all too easy to do if you zig instead of zag or straight line flight just a few seconds too long.
|
Bloody2k
Gallente SCHWARZSCHILD.
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 14:11:00 -
[10]
Remove MWD and AB as fittable Item.
Add to every Ship a AB and a MWD, like the scanner-button in every ship. Einmal mit Profis! |
|
Yamato Gasaraki
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 14:16:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Komi Toran B) that's not realistic at all, as the only way ships turn in space is by thrust, and as you don't see maneuvering jets on any of the ships, that means thrust vectoring from the main engines. More thrust therefore = faster turns (even if they are wider). Fortunately, realism isn't the best measure of how things should happen in game.
There's something called inertia, even with dampeners it's so strong it'd rip the ships apart. I'd say there should be a command that allows you to turn at max speed, but damages structure and armor. And kills your ship if you go overboard.
Differing from the Norm isn't inevitably bad. |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 15:45:00 -
[12]
I admit the MWD is a mandatory item in PvP, even despite the drawbacks noone seriously consider sacrificing speed due to them.
Being unable of MWDing out of a bubble is still rather your death than huge signature radius or increased ship mass... Its the way it's working, dunno what can be done there except of removing them from the game entirely.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 15:50:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Foraven Here my reasoning : is there a reason not to put afterburners/microwarpdrives, or one not to leave them on all the time? I believe most players prefer to have them on their ships because it makes STL flight more bearable and makes their ships a lot harder to hit. Now, ships without them are at great disadvantage in combat, so theses modules tend to be mandatory...
What if those modules had a drawback (other than draining capacitor)? I think the one that would be obvious would be to reduce manouverability, meaning the ship capability to turn is reduced. That would make sense realistically and also make theses device usuful at closing the gap or getting away, but not at circling around at close range from the target.
AB and MWD current: Makes agility worse (worse mobility) Fitting them takes away tank and/or tackle/ewar. MWD adds huge sig bloom (learn how this affects your ship...)
They already have drawbacks, giving them more draw backs will not stop players form using them, jsut add more drawbakcs making all ships less good.
Bad idea, besideds you missed all the current drawbacks due to lack of understanding of game mechanincs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Siddy
Minmatar Evolution IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:06:00 -
[14]
you know what, there is other modules that are also mandatory fit on some ships.
for example: guns
Anyho, your troll is so transperant that its sad to see so many taking the bait. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Siddy you know what, there is other modules that are also mandatory fit on some ships.
for example: guns
lol, actually... he's right. Yes, it's mandatory but... SO WHAT? =)
|
Don Pellegrino
Helljumpers
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:09:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Siddy you know what, there is other modules that are also mandatory fit on some ships.
for example: guns
Anyho, your troll is so transperant that its sad to see so many taking the bait.
This.
Also, don't try to "fix" (more like break) what isn't broken.
|
Insa Rexion
Minmatar CTRL-Q
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:16:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Foraven Edited by: Foraven on 01/12/2009 00:44:15
Originally by: Grarr Wrexx I dunno, I think taking a quarter of their capacitor and increasing their signature radius by 500% is big enough of a drawback already.
Still don't prevent anyone from keeping them on a while, even while fighting. I don't think many consider not using AB or MWD in combat (especially PVP). What i want with my changes is to make them what we use to close in or get away, but not during the combat itself. Capacitor is rarely an issue unless the fight drag on while.
Why ? speed tanking is a legitmate form of defence why should it br "prevented" ?
I really think you'll find that u are about the only person who likes this idea --------------------------------------------
DOMINION ! Welcome to Amarr Online the sequel, last buff was business, this time it's permanent |
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:18:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Don Pellegrino
Originally by: Siddy you know what, there is other modules that are also mandatory fit on some ships.
for example: guns
Anyho, your troll is so transperant that its sad to see so many taking the bait.
This.
Also, don't try to "fix" (more like break) what isn't broken.
This. I wish there would be a way to prevent people from spamming the forums with stupid ideas.
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:18:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Siddy you know what, there is other modules that are also mandatory fit on some ships.
for example: guns
Anyho, your troll is so transperant that its sad to see so many taking the bait.
You are the troll here, my concerns are legitimate. Sure, you may not think that having some modules mandatory on every design (be it for pvp, pve and pretty much everything else) is not an issue, but i do think it is. The obvious one is that not all ships can fit everything that has become mandatory, thus making them less popular (if not deemed useless).
For the heck of it, can you think of any ship fitting that would not require MWD or AB on it?
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:29:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Robert Caldera I admit the MWD is a mandatory item in PvP, even despite the drawbacks noone seriously consider sacrificing speed due to them.
Being unable of MWDing out of a bubble is still rather your death than huge signature radius or increased ship mass... Its the way it's working, dunno what can be done there except of removing them from the game entirely.
But the same can be said with AB, you probably fit it in every design until you can get MWD (unless you run a dead space mission or you fit both by default). I dunno, i can't think of any ways that would not create arbitrary rules in the game. But i would much prefer drawbacks that occur when you actually USE the device rather than when you just have it on your ship. I find it sad this game make use counter designs, but not what the enemy is actively doing in combat (ie what modules they have active at a given moment).
|
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:53:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Foraven For the heck of it, can you think of any ship fitting that would not require MWD or AB on it?
some people roam even in 0.0 without a mwd. (see e.g. kil2's video "seven")
|
GavinCapacitor
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:58:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Foraven Edited by: Foraven on 01/12/2009 00:44:15
Originally by: Grarr Wrexx I dunno, I think taking a quarter of their capacitor and increasing their signature radius by 500% is big enough of a drawback already.
Still don't prevent anyone from keeping them on a while, even while fighting. I don't think many consider not using AB or MWD in combat (especially PVP). What i want with my changes is to make them what we use to close in or get away, but not during the combat itself. Capacitor is rarely an issue unless the fight drag on while.
I bolded the ridiculous parts for you.
|
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 19:23:00 -
[23]
Well consider the way tracking works in this game if you orbit fast you have the same radial velocity to your target as your target has to you, this it not like RL. So essentially if you want anything you have to track really well or you have to slow down hence why most people shutdown their MWD or AB once they get in range.
The only ships that don't turn of their AB or MWD are tacklers and they need the speed to stay alive if they shut them down they pop which would sort of make fast tacklers obselete and completely give advantage to the side that can get their ships on the field last.
|
StarDeffender
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 19:58:00 -
[24]
Well a good drawback would be to make the afterburner use some sort of charges like the cap charges for capacitor. It would actually make game way more interesting.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 20:37:00 -
[25]
Originally by: StarDeffender Well a good drawback would be to make the afterburner use some sort of charges like the cap charges for capacitor. It would actually make game way more interesting.
This is already there. it is called cap booster. as most of the larger ships cant mwd/AB for a long time while still running guns/tank.
looking at modules isolated will never give you a solution. look at them in the big picture and you will notice that the penalties are bad enough already.
if you would add some extra charges you would need to balance all cargo holds again. e.g. gallente ships have to carry ammo, cap charges and then your AB/MWD charges. you wouldnt bring much to the game and add a lot more work.
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 02:40:00 -
[26]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Foraven For the heck of it, can you think of any ship fitting that would not require MWD or AB on it?
some people roam even in 0.0 without a mwd. (see e.g. kil2's video "seven")
But do they also go around without an AB?
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 02:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: StarDeffender Well a good drawback would be to make the afterburner use some sort of charges like the cap charges for capacitor. It would actually make game way more interesting.
This is already there. it is called cap booster. as most of the larger ships cant mwd/AB for a long time while still running guns/tank.
looking at modules isolated will never give you a solution. look at them in the big picture and you will notice that the penalties are bad enough already.
if you would add some extra charges you would need to balance all cargo holds again. e.g. gallente ships have to carry ammo, cap charges and then your AB/MWD charges. you wouldnt bring much to the game and add a lot more work.
Why not make AB and MWB have charges (like ammos) on them, when you activate them, it deplete (and how long you can keep it on depend on skills), then it recharge once you turn it off (either drawing slowly from capacitor, or taking part of the capacitor recharge to recharge itself)? I think it would be a nice change because it would not be affected by capacitor draining modules, yet would pretty much work the same for every ships...
|
Foraven
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 03:13:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Komi Toran
Define "a while." There are so many hedge words in there that your statement is meaningless. It basically sounds to me as if you are defining the length of an engagement based on when capacitor is an issue, and then turning around and saying capacitor is not an issue except in those newly defined 'extended' engagements.
I'm not very good with very accurate statements. I did not chrono how long engagement last. I just know that on engagements that unfold quickly (like you blow your adversaries in a few salvos), how much AB or MWD drain isn't a serious issue. It's when you deal with heavily tanked adversaries (very likely against other players), or have lots of enemies that take some time to dispose of (think missions), then it can be an issue.
Quote:
Afterburners, yes, they can be run non-stop on a number of ships and setups no problem. However, ABs aren't used as much in PvP. They certainly aren't as popular as MWD, which should tell you that ABs aren't overpowered. In fact, CCP is still looking at ways to make ABs more popular in PvP, not less. Since ABs aren't overpowered, there's no conceivable reason to nerf them.
I did not mean it as a nerf, just as extra effects turning them on could cause. I would much prefer the negative effects occur only when they are turned on rather than by just having them installed on ship (i would like the same for MWD). My only concern is that learning skills for AB then MWD seem something no one can skip, very few players likes to fly ships at the slow pace they do without speed boost. I would be nice if we could adjust top speed by toying around with power allocation (ie take shield/capacitor recharge power for more speed or the opposite) so not using speed boosters would not be as crippling...
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 03:43:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Foraven
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: StarDeffender Well a good drawback would be to make the afterburner use some sort of charges like the cap charges for capacitor. It would actually make game way more interesting.
This is already there. it is called cap booster. as most of the larger ships cant mwd/AB for a long time while still running guns/tank.
looking at modules isolated will never give you a solution. look at them in the big picture and you will notice that the penalties are bad enough already.
if you would add some extra charges you would need to balance all cargo holds again. e.g. gallente ships have to carry ammo, cap charges and then your AB/MWD charges. you wouldnt bring much to the game and add a lot more work.
Why not make AB and MWB have charges (like ammos) on them, when you activate them, it deplete (and how long you can keep it on depend on skills), then it recharge once you turn it off (either drawing slowly from capacitor, or taking part of the capacitor recharge to recharge itself)? I think it would be a nice change because it would not be affected by capacitor draining modules, yet would pretty much work the same for every ships...
*facepalms* you really dont understand it ... you want to squeeze even more type of charges into the cargo bays? seriously those cargo bays are crowded enough already. if you tie mwd/ab to cap you can reuse the existing charges (cap booster) for longer usages.
we really dont need yet another charge. *shakes head* please stop making suggestions. i have all of your suggestions and none of them had been good. you play that game longer than 3 months already?
|
Komi Toran
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 04:04:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Foraven I did not mean it as a nerf, just as extra effects turning them on could cause. I would much prefer the negative effects occur only when they are turned on rather than by just having them installed on ship (i would like the same for MWD). My only concern is that learning skills for AB then MWD seem something no one can skip, very few players likes to fly ships at the slow pace they do without speed boost. I would be nice if we could adjust top speed by toying around with power allocation (ie take shield/capacitor recharge power for more speed or the opposite) so not using speed boosters would not be as crippling...
Except, what you are talking about is a nerf. Adding a negative effect without an offsetting positive effect is, by definition, a nerf.
And the power allocation thing, while being something with some merit, still wouldn't make speed modules any less necessary, as you will simply have ships that have MWDs and their settings set to maximum speed. It takes us back to Eve pre-speed nerf (which, as far as I'm concerned, would be great, but that's another topic).
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |