Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zana Kito
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 03:26:00 -
[1]
Here's some good discussion points on the matter.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=893109
------------
The problem: AB aren't used as the MWD is simply required for a lot of situations. Most of them aren't related to simply flying fast constantly (the nanos), but for the purposes of avoiding bubbles, reapproaching gates, and simply short bursts to get in or out of range. The afterburner is simply too slow for these tasks. Hence, everyone equips MWDs.
The solution: Add a script for ABs. Said script works similar to existing ones, 1m3 cargo space, quick load. The script would boost AB speed to ~400%, reduces mass addition to 0 (AB/MWD add mass on use currently), but adds a reactivation timer, 15s or 30s time. What this means is if you want to, the AB can provide a quick short speed burst for 15s (fast acceleration), then it becomes inactive for 15-30s. So the fast speed is not sustained, it's simply a short duration burn that fills the requirement for a lot of the purpose of the MWD.
So the situation becomes flexible, people who want constant fast speed will go with the MWD while those who would normally be forced to fit a MWD for short bursts can now fit an AB.
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 03:40:00 -
[2]
If the devs actually used their brains and thought of this first we might not be in this current mess.
Excellent idea. Awesome EVE history
Missiles ba-oom! |
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 03:51:00 -
[3]
I like this idea - but I would prefer to see MWD's replaced completely by this AB with scripts. ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome.
Selling Virtue implants - convo me if interested. |
Arkios Odymei
Incarnation of Evil
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 04:13:00 -
[4]
I like the idea. It solves some issues of sustainable super speed ships while both allowing players to still use short term mwd-like bursts aswell as changing the speed dynamic in close range fights.
The only things I would change would be: 1) Instead of scripts, make it a consumable like how cap charges work. There should be 3 different sized versions of this consumable and each is designed so they can only be used with either 1MN, 10MN, or 100MN ABs. Make the consumable take up a significant ammount of cargo space (100MN fuel would take up as much space as an 400 cap booster charge, 10MN = 200 charge size, and 1MN = 50 charge size). This will give more options and dificult choices, as you have to balance out how much ammo vs how many cap boosters vs how much AB fuel to bring in your limited cargo hold.
2) Get rid of the deactivation delay (cause no body likes those). The cargo hold size will be enough of a limiting factor and should prevent the ability to sustain high speeds for very long. If you notice the sizes I gave as example, BSs with 100MN AB fuel will take up perportionaly more cargo space than cruisers, and likewise cruisers than frigs. This simply means that smaller classed ships should have an easier time sustaining highspeeds as thay can bring more fuel charges. (If you really want to limit the sustainability even more, you can make the fuel sizes 100MN = 800 charge size, 10MN = 400 charge size, and 1MN = 100 charge size)
3) Finaly, you should still be able to activate the module without a fuel consumable loaded, but it will act as an AB currently does on TQ (Maybe buff stock AB's a little bit too). ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 04:55:00 -
[5]
Originally by: FT Diomedes I like this idea - but I would prefer to see MWD's replaced completely by this AB with scripts.
That was one of the initial ideas, but it has some problems.
Known issues with this idea:
If script-based, needs reactivation delay otherwise it's just a ridiculous buff to ABs and would make them just strictly better than MWDs all the time. Reactivation delay would kill ships like inties and ships that for whatever reason want to permamwd. ==> either make it use cargohold or ==> leave MWDs alone while changing ABs
Issues with cargohold: ==> Balancing charge sizes is very difficult, for various reasons ==> Another thing that players need to stuff into their cargohold, annoying. ==> Need to possibly increase/rebalance (some) cargohold sizes.
Another, very important words:
The ideas in the thread referred to are not 100% the same as the ideas proposed in the OP here, and I (as the starter of the thread in question) strongly encourage all of you to read through both.
__________________________________
Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
|
rgreat
Gallente OEG GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 03:07:00 -
[6]
Edited by: rgreat on 13/10/2008 03:10:07 disregard ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Jade190
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 03:55:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Jade190 on 13/10/2008 03:55:23 One question to the OP. WHY?! Is it the "OMG, EVERY MOD SHOUD BE USED IN TEH PVP!" arguement? If so, why not boost ECCM? Warp Scramblers? Ship Scanners? Salvagers? Tractor Beams? Hell, Mining Lasers? Just accept that through the evolution of the game that a module has been outdated and deemed pointless FOR PVP (still useful in PVE though, kinda like MINING LASERS ARE USEFUL IN PVE!). F**king r*tards ruin good games. ------ Fighting stupidity since before you were stupid. |
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 04:09:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jade190 Edited by: Jade190 on 13/10/2008 03:55:23 One question to the OP. WHY?! Is it the "OMG, EVERY MOD SHOUD BE USED IN TEH PVP!" arguement? If so, why not boost ECCM? Warp Scramblers? Ship Scanners? Salvagers? Tractor Beams? Hell, Mining Lasers? Just accept that through the evolution of the game that a module has been outdated and deemed pointless FOR PVP (still useful in PVE though, kinda like MINING LASERS ARE USEFUL IN PVE!). F**king r*tards ruin good games.
It was CCP's idea to fix afterburners to be useful in pvp. They're also fixing warp scramblers.
ECCM, ship scanners, tractor beams, and salvagers all work fine in pvp.
|
Jade190
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 04:13:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Strill
It was CCP's idea to fix afterburners to be useful in pvp. They're also fixing warp scramblers.
ECCM, ship scanners, tractor beams, and salvagers all work fine in pvp.
If you've looked at CCP's recent chain of ideas, THEY ARE STUPID. CCP is failing on a massive level, I guess they just can't help themselves. Let's whine about players in space. I can't get any good ratting space because gangs are in space. NERF GANG SO I CAN RAT ANYWHERE I PLEASE. ------ Fighting stupidity since before you were stupid. |
rgreat
Gallente OEG GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 04:27:00 -
[10]
Edited by: rgreat on 13/10/2008 04:26:50 Lol, play on test server.
You can rat freely there. No gangs, same belts. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 16:10:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jade190 Edited by: Jade190 on 13/10/2008 03:55:23 One question to the OP. WHY?! Is it the "OMG, EVERY MOD SHOUD BE USED IN TEH PVP!" arguement? If so, why not boost ECCM? Warp Scramblers? Ship Scanners? Salvagers? Tractor Beams? Hell, Mining Lasers? Just accept that through the evolution of the game that a module has been outdated and deemed pointless FOR PVP (still useful in PVE though, kinda like MINING LASERS ARE USEFUL IN PVE!). F**king r*tards ruin good games.
OP here.
I'm not quite sure what your point is - ECCM and Warp Scramblers are both purely PVP modules (you don't need either of them for running missions, ever). Ship scanners do have their use (go go suicide gankers) and yes some would say that they should be buffed (some people would like to have "knowing what the enemy has fit" being as useful as another module you would put in a midslot.) Hell, some people would even like to see tractor beams having a greater role in PVP. Let's say there were three different sizes (small/medium/large) and you could use them to tractor other ships and drones in, as opposed by their propulsion strength (you know, that value that doesn't do anything... yet.)
I think your point is that if the metagame has shifted such that one module is always used and another module is never used, we should accept that.
I would like to disagree - for example, as gang sizes get larger, blasters become less useful. Since gang sizes are bound to increase with time (a different problem entirely), do you suggest that we just leave blasters useless? I think that it would be detrimental to diversity.
Additionally, many of us who have played with the speed changes on Sisi like them very much. They breathe new life into short range combat, whereas before it was mwd into range ==> move at effectively 0 speed, wait to see who explodes first. That is, yes, a simplification but not by too much.
Many of us - CCP included, since I believe they have expressed this opinion - would like to see AB become the tactical movement module - i.e., if you want to be mobile in combat for any number of reasons, you should want to fit an AB. Unfortunately, since you need a greater speed boost than is provided by the AB in order to not die outside of combat situations - which includes getting blobbed or burning back to gate, since you can hardly call that "combat" - as well as bumping and burning into warp disruption range - means that the AB is insufficient as a speed module, and people simply cannot fit both a MWD and an AB (midslots are at a premium already).
Nerfing MWD just means that when you do end up in actual combat, you wish you had an AB more than you did before the nerf (like, if you get scrammed), but if you do fit an AB you'll still die to any old random gatecamp.
Keeping a wide variety of modules useful is good for the game, especially when the module in question is one that CCP has said on multiple occasions that they would like to see being used. __________________________________
Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 18:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: lecrotta on 13/10/2008 18:40:04
A afterburner is a mid slot module that gives a ship a constant boost of speed, and so is a MWD.
Who cares what you call the module if they go in the same slot and give exactly the same effect ccp could have called the afterburner a lesser mwd and phased it out but instead we seem to be making useful modules like MWD's useless just to make useless modules like afterburners useful (although they failed miserably and now both bloody modules suck tbh).
And pvp in eve is gonna suffer for it ffs.
SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
|
z0de
Gallente The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 18:51:00 -
[13]
I like ops origonal idea. Ships that need to speedtank will fit mwds and ships that just need to get in range, run from a bubble will fit abs. I often don't fit an mwd on bigger ships now for the extra cap, slot, grid and relie on good scouts/tacklers (real people, not alts) to scout the gang/me.
|
Grim Vandal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 21:31:00 -
[14]
The problem with afterburners is that you die in seconds to missiles so maybe the problem that ABs arent viable are missiles?!?
Greetings Grim |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 21:37:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 13/10/2008 21:39:46 The problem with afterburners: they do not give enough speed bonus to fulfill the tactical uses of MWD.
Therefore ABs will be restricted to small ships and very small scale combat where damage mitigation by using AB will be somewhat viable. Nerfing MWD does not make AB viable, except in the situation above (niche).
You all are focusing on damage mitigation, you don't fit MWD on for damage mitigation except on nano-setups, you fit it on ships for a huge list of reasons. ABs just don't work for a lot of things - from range control, to gtfo, to reapproaching gates / burning to RR range / etc, they're just too damn slow to be useful. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 21:51:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
The problem with afterburners: they do not give enough speed bonus to fulfill the tactical uses of MWD.
Therefore ABs will be restricted to small ships and very small scale combat where damage mitigation by using AB will be somewhat viable. Nerfing MWD does not make AB viable, except in the situation above (niche).
You all are focusing on damage mitigation, you don't fit MWD on for damage mitigation except on nano-setups, you fit it on ships for a huge list of reasons. ABs just don't work for a lot of things - from range control, to gtfo, to reapproaching gates / burning to RR range / etc, they're just too damn slow to be useful.
I fit a AB on my BS now on TQ for certain operations as the extra PG is more of a benefit than a bit of extra speed in several circumstances already. But those circumstances are exclusive to large ships like BS that can tank a hostile gang solo for a short amount of time and also have a good hp buffer for RR.
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 04:33:00 -
[17]
there are many people who dont see the amount of agility grid and cpu gained not equippping a mwd on ships however afterburners dont fill the gap between mwd and ab nicely enough though.
Instead of all this script stuff and that a mid level between speed booster the two module classes would be nicer instead.
Pre Order your Sisters of Eve ship today!!! |
Murkon Salesgirl
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 09:46:00 -
[18]
CCP: Boost the AB. It needs it. Your assumption that scram shutting off MWD will mean AB become viable is wrong. Why? You don't understand all the reasons why people need the MWD.. it's not just for nanoing and avoiding fire. Scram or no scram, people will still need fast bursts of speed. |
Lusulpher
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 08:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl CCP: Boost the AB. It needs it. Your assumption that scram shutting off MWD will mean AB become viable is wrong. Why? You don't understand all the reasons why people need the MWD.. it's not just for nanoing and avoiding fire. Scram or no scram, people will still need fast bursts of speed.
QFT. Signed so hard I have a pen imbedded in my hand!
No bursts of speed, no pvp, period. maybe ganking, but no pvp. Less travel, less market activity, more blobbing near stations and gates, more lag... Live and Let Die...All of it...null |
Roozu Valentine
Gallente University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 09:19:00 -
[20]
I f*cking <3 this idea.
/signed
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 09:36:00 -
[21]
NOpe. Bad idea. Why because CCp want to AVOID modules becoming mandatory. This does not help with it, just transfer.
The best solution is change the way to deal with bubbles. The idea has its merits, but fails on one thing. Does not change the fundamental problem.
Make All types of bubbles appear in overview, including interdictor ones. Also make them reasonably fast to lock and reduce quite a lot their HP.
Make that KILLING a bubble becomes the best and easiest option to get rid of a bubble. That is what would make MWD non mandatory in 0.0 ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 10:59:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Additionally, many of us who have played with the speed changes on Sisi like them very much. They breathe new life into short range combat, whereas before it was mwd into range ==> move at effectively 0 speed, wait to see who explodes first. That is, yes, a simplification but not by too much.
To be honest, I find SISI combat to be even more like that now, with the caveat of possibly encountering AB-ing lolfits which do in fact menage to do 180m/s in webrange or so.
MWD-ing ships are slower then ever before in short range combat, as scrambler + 60% web slows your max speed down from the 150m/s max (for a webbed MWD-ing BC for instance) to about 80m/s (webbed BC, cannot MWD anymore).
Overall, with the neccesity of fitting scramblers (or dual webs, but scrambler + web is superior except vs AB lolfits and takes a midslot less), I find my combat style shifting from 0-24km combat to point blank bludgeoning, reducing actual combat options by far.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |