Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sokratesz
Guardians of Hell's Gate Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 14:51:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Tuxford at this point we're not touching mwd and I doubt we'll do it in the near future
Good, one question answered, 5 more waiting in queue :)
- stacking penalty on hull mods?
I feel like a templar, an Amarr fighter drone, used by carriers. |
xOm3gAx
Caldari Stain of Mind
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 14:56:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Tuxford at this point we're not touching mwd and I doubt we'll do it in the near future
Thank you tux for the reply and for not touching mwd. If u didnt already scroll up a few posts before urs and check out my idea. I personally think its pretty solid though in all the topics i've posted it no one replied to it ;)
TBH its a trade off that honostly does make perfect sence. -----------
"Mercinaries never die, we just go to hell to regroup." -xOm3gAx '99
|
Andre Coeurl
Gallente Mextora
|
Posted - 2007.03.13 17:41:00 -
[33]
I am a relatively new player, but I enjoy the variety of gamestyles allowed by different chanches to fit ships, and I believe that too much nerfing would render the game much less enjoyable. Thanks to Tux for having reassured me and others about MWD, I was very worried to loose a big chanche to have some fun after reading the dev-blog ^_^'
As far as I can see, every ship fitting has its benefits and its disadvantages, and very niche ships usually have their nemesis... nanoBS are very fast and dangerous but also fragile and I believe only skilled pilots can use them efficiently.
Even then, I understand nanoBS are thought to be a problem by many pilots, and I have to believe they speak out of real experience, but even then, I don't believe that eliminating the chanche to use nanos and istab as it was meant to be would be very fair. Doing so would eliminate completely a fitting alternative that is meaningful, also given the fact that some weapons have very short range, and ships using them must be fast to be effective.
For the above reasons I would agree with the proposal made by Ysolde Xen, the stacking penalty solution being both fair and simple. Adding a stacking penalty to speed or inertia reduction would keep those modules still useful while avoiding unrealistic results, but the stacking penalty shouldn't be excessive. All in all, IMHO if anybody decides to sacrifice all his low slots for a single purpose, having therefore no tank or no grid/cap to spare, he should still have something in return. --- --- ---
|
reg keeper
The JORG Corporation FATAL Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 16:46:00 -
[34]
At present a good 95% of the eve pvpers are unable to deal with a nano ship in a mano a mano fight. Due to the insane speed. I see post quoting the tracking of the nano ships guns? What gun iev only ever seen them use NOS to kill your cap and using large drones(5)to do there dirty work. Phoons launch 4 cruise missles while using 5 heavy drones and all the time killing your cap so you sit there unable to fight back or defend your ship. The idea of stacking or limiting the amount of mods you can fit of one type is a good idea. As a crusader flyer i know that with just one i-stab and a nano the ship is still fast enough to do what it was made for. I find most that are defending the multi module set up are the same ones using them and causing all this disruption. Limit the numbers of the problem modules and bring the game back in to balance. BS and BC by description are heavy and there as fire power and support to the smaller ships. It should not get to the case where all we have is 2 bs seen in eve with only one type of fitting. Oh and does there massive speeds cause extra lag as iev notice lag spikes happen around nano squads?
|
Distun
La Stere Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2007.03.16 04:02:00 -
[35]
While you're at it,make 1mn,10mn and 100mn variants of stasis webifiers with accordingly stats too.
|
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar Red Dwarf Mining Corps 5th Column
|
Posted - 2007.03.16 04:14:00 -
[36]
Roll back the changes that screwed things up. Pretty simple, eh? Doesn't require CCP to stuff MWD's with "MWD Charges", increased cap uses per successive cycle of activation, or anything else. Just put down the nerfbat and smack that "ROLLBACK" button. THUKKER -Be Paranoid
|
Pinky Denmark
|
Posted - 2007.03.16 09:26:00 -
[37]
Tuxford - I love the current SiSi thing your crew have done... keeping the mwd as is and balance the 3 lowslot modules in mention and it'll be a job well done!!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |