open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Controversial MWD & AB rebalance
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.06.19 07:46:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 11:11:59
Rather than hijack one of the existing threads, I thought I'd post a controversial idea about MWDs in a separate thread. Thus apologies in advance if this adds to a proliferation of 'change something to do with speed' ideas (though I'm sure there's a hint in there somewhere if that is the case).

No, before you leap in, it's not a nano-whine, or at least not aimed at them directly. The idea, which I don't claim to be entirely my own as I'm sure I've seen elements of it elsewhere is the following:

MWD - as it stands, it's M for Mandatory in PvP.
AB - purely used for PvE or where for some reason you can't fit an MWD.

Yes, nano-ships are dependent on MWDs at the moment, but that is not the motivation behind this post. The need for MWDs implies something is rather fundamentally wrong with the design in EVE. It means you're left with less variety if everyone and their dog fits, nay has to fit, an MWD to be effective in PvP.

At present, we therefore have a split between ABs and MWDs where one is a niche item and the other one you fit as naturally as breathing. This seems more than a bit bizarre. I would therefore propose to change the split, to alter the balance. How about changing the split to AB is for speed during combat, and MWD is for speed getting to and from combat?

Edit: What is the best way to achieve this? My previous idea involved boosting the sig radius massively, but whilst that has an effect, it's not enough of one. Anyone got a better idea?

I believe the above change injects some sanity into the never-ending quest for speed in EVE, restores ABs to their rightful place as a useful module, and whilst it might end the nano-ships' rule as a total solopwnmobile (barring anti-nano gangs) it does not prevent them from existing or working as intended. As always, the devil is in the details and I leave the precise balance to CCP.

Imaos
Posted - 2008.06.19 08:37:00 - [2]
 

Making the signature radius even bigger only helps turret and sentry drone users. It still makes you untouchable by missiles and regular drones.

Imaos

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.06.19 09:41:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 09:42:30
Originally by: Imaos
Making the signature radius even bigger only helps turret and sentry drone users. It still makes you untouchable by missiles and regular drones.


A fair point, although I keep hearing from some corners that 'no-one ever uses missiles in PvP' - I'm not sure whether to believe that, having been on the receiving end of torps before now, but I think the change still makes sense.

Consider, to take the extreme and popular example of nano-ships, that at the moment, you require a specific anti-nano setup and complete gang to deal with these ships. With this, all you need are turrets.

Sure, it's not perfect, but I think a claim of 'use guns, not missiles, vs MWD nano-ships' would be a lot more palatable than 'use a gang with heavy neuts and lots of webs and hope you get in range in time'.

Edit: This makes it look like a nano-whine, so to counter that I'd point out the above holds true for a lot of PvP engagements - you can hardly bank on always coming up against missile & pure drone ships.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.06.19 10:01:00 - [4]
 

I don't think that will work.

Turrets do hit better based on sig res/sig rad relation, but they still need tracking/optimal to hit at all. It would just move the threshold for quality hits out a bit till you cross the tracking threshold. Then you are still in the miss miss miss miss scenario.

And as was pointed out, nothing for missiles.

The only difference would be, that battleship would be able to lock MWDing interceptors faster.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.06.19 10:23:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 10:25:14
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 10:23:18
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Turrets do hit better based on sig res/sig rad relation, but they still need tracking/optimal to hit at all. It would just move the threshold for quality hits out a bit till you cross the tracking threshold. Then you are still in the miss miss miss miss scenario.

Bear in mind I'm not deliberately targeting nano-ships here, I'm looking to discourage use of MWDs during combat, only for getting to and from, short bursts to get in range etc. As you point out sig radius alone does not prevent MWDs from being effective if you can go fast enough to evade tracking. Hmm. I think the change would promote use of AB over MWD, but you're right that it doesn't solve the entire picture.

As for missiles, that's pretty much an entire can of worms by itself. The way missiles work prevent them working well with fast targets; it doesn't really matter how they end up going fast. Short of making signature radius part of missiles calculations or somesuch nonsense, I don't think this is easily solved.

Edit: I suppose what I'm trying to find is a balance that promotes ABs as well as MWDs for given situations, and avoid a blanket reduction in speed modules that might inevitably happen if nano-ships are whined about enough.
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
The only difference would be, that battleship would be able to lock MWDing interceptors faster.

I did cover interceptors specifically.

Duhmad IbnRa
Gallente
EvE Dynamo
Posted - 2008.06.19 12:55:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Astria Tiphareth


Edit: What is the best way to achieve this? My previous idea involved boosting the sig radius massively, but whilst that has an effect, it's not enough of one. Anyone got a better idea?




This

Matrixcvd
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.06.19 13:07:00 - [7]
 

MWD is just fine, no problem, turrets/launchers/drones are required for damage, ammo or crystals in your cargo hold is required....

deal with the requirements, only thing you aren't required to do is undock and target someone, if you cant understand why you keep dying in fail setups or by gank squads, its not the game its you

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.06.19 13:10:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 13:13:20
Originally by: Matrixcvd
MWD is just fine, no problem, turrets/launchers/drones are required for damage, ammo or crystals in your cargo hold is required....

deal with the requirements, only thing you aren't required to do is undock and target someone, if you cant understand why you keep dying in fail setups or by gank squads, its not the game its you


Oh look a troll. Had you taken the time to read my post, you'd have worked out that none of the above applies, I'm looking at the overall game balance, not whether I personally can cope in PvP. Idiot.

I'm quite comfortable in working within a flawed game design and PvPing with an MWD. This doesn't stop me questioning how that flawed game design can be improved on. Case in point: MWD is pretty much the only required module beyond guns. Web isn't needed on every ship, as long as you have enough; same goes for scram. Individuals definitions of enough may of course vary.

Ralagina
Caldari
ReviveX Fleet
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.06.19 13:36:00 - [9]
 

Why not just give all ships a MWD?

Just give them a button, like weh ave for "open cargo". It's a MWD when in normal space, and in deadspace it's effectiveness is reduced by 80% or something (so you still get AB speeds in missions). Keep the mid slot there, but reduce the power and cpu of the ship by 50% of a tech 2 MWD for that ship size.

FlameGlow
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2008.06.19 13:43:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: FlameGlow on 19/06/2008 13:44:28
The thing broken about MWD is that the mass it adds when activated is reduced by ship's modules. Make it add that mass after base mass was reduced and there goes agility, uber-acceleration and some speed of nano-abusers. Nothing is changed for ppl who uses MWD to travel or get in range at the same time.

Del Narveux
Dukes of Hazard
Posted - 2008.06.19 13:45:00 - [11]
 

One option that might be worth looking into is making MWD live up to its name, and have you basically do a straight-line warp at .1 AU or something. But doing this would require both a reason to want to warp around randomly (which we actually need, eve is way too POI focused) and significant changes to AB, interceptors and gallente ships.

Or make them use substantially more cap, so its something that any ship other than an interceptor can only reasonably fire once or twice to get in range.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.06.19 13:46:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 13:49:46
Originally by: FlameGlow
Edited by: FlameGlow on 19/06/2008 13:44:28
The thing broken about MWD is that the mass it adds when activated is reduced by ship's modules. Make it add that mass after base mass was reduced and there goes agility, uber-acceleration and some speed of nano-abusers. Nothing is changed for ppl who uses MWD to travel or get in range at the same time.


Nice idea, like it.

Originally by: Del Narveux
One option that might be worth looking into is making MWD live up to its name, and have you basically do a straight-line warp at .1 AU or something. But doing this would require both a reason to want to warp around randomly (which we actually need, eve is way too POI focused) and significant changes to AB, interceptors and gallente ships.


Ah, what Star Trek fan hasn't dreamed of doing the Picard manoeuvre in EVE Twisted Evil. Certainly an intriguing notion to throw in the mix.

Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.19 14:14:00 - [13]
 

I think best way to achieve this is to have mwd massively effect your ships agility....

eve played halo 2 and flying a ghost. they can turn on the spot but activate your boost (mwd) and you fly forward super fast barely able to turn.

say make a ship 5 time less agile when mwd is active only. This would mean if you are up close to your enemy and you try to orbit with your mwd on it just won't work well.

That's how I'd do it anyway.

Duhmad IbnRa
Gallente
EvE Dynamo
Posted - 2008.06.19 14:22:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Duhmad IbnRa on 19/06/2008 14:26:46
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 13:49:46
Originally by: FlameGlow
Edited by: FlameGlow on 19/06/2008 13:44:28
The thing broken about MWD is that the mass it adds when activated is reduced by ship's modules. Make it add that mass after base mass was reduced and there goes agility, uber-acceleration and some speed of nano-abusers. Nothing is changed for ppl who uses MWD to travel or get in range at the same time.


Nice idea, like it.

Originally by: Del Narveux
One option that might be worth looking into is making MWD live up to its name, and have you basically do a straight-line warp at .1 AU or something. But doing this would require both a reason to want to warp around randomly (which we actually need, eve is way too POI focused) and significant changes to AB, interceptors and gallente ships.


Ah, what Star Trek fan hasn't dreamed of doing the Picard manoeuvre in EVE Twisted Evil. Certainly an intriguing notion to throw in the mix.


Maybe applying a strong agility penalty for active mwd and removing their autocycling capabilitiy would steer it in the right direction.

Edit: in this case however switching it off would have to result in an almost instant return to base speed.

Then give t2 frigs, dictors and vagabonds a bonus that allows them to fit ABs for the next bigger shipclass.

Salpad
Caldari
Carebears with Attitude
Posted - 2008.06.19 20:20:00 - [15]
 

Yes, it is a game design problem if there is an option that is supposed to be optional but which everybody ends up using all the time, and that is, from all that I've heard and read, the case with MWDs in PVP.

Verdict: Not working as intended.

Jeckes
Posted - 2008.06.19 22:41:00 - [16]
 

ABs and MWDs inherently a NOT a problem at all.

They become a game breaking problem though, when you include all the fittings and implants that turn these modules into godmode speed tanking.

that is the problem. the compounded effect of all this, instead of any single module or implant itself.

Jeckes
Posted - 2008.06.19 22:42:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Salpad
Yes, it is a game design problem if there is an option that is supposed to be optional but which everybody ends up using all the time, and that is, from all that I've heard and read, the case with MWDs in PVP.

Verdict: Not working as intended.



exactly. I dont like using AB and MWD at all, since it adds lots of mass to your ship, and why should it be a requirement at all? I only use it because I have to in order to be competitive.

Merroki
Posted - 2008.06.20 00:19:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Jeckes
Originally by: Salpad

Verdict: Not working as intended.



exactly. I dont like using AB and MWD at all, since it adds lots of mass to your ship, and why should it be a requirement at all? I only use it because I have to in order to be competitive.


And the weirdest part about it is, it only adds mass to your ship when you turn it on... ugh

Farrah Jun
Posted - 2008.06.20 05:59:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Duhmad IbnRa
Edited by: Duhmad IbnRa on 19/06/2008 14:26:46
Originally by: Astria Tiphareth
Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 19/06/2008 13:49:46
Originally by: FlameGlow
Edited by: FlameGlow on 19/06/2008 13:44:28
The thing broken about MWD is that the mass it adds when activated is reduced by ship's modules. Make it add that mass after base mass was reduced and there goes agility, uber-acceleration and some speed of nano-abusers. Nothing is changed for ppl who uses MWD to travel or get in range at the same time.


Nice idea, like it.

Originally by: Del Narveux
One option that might be worth looking into is making MWD live up to its name, and have you basically do a straight-line warp at .1 AU or something. But doing this would require both a reason to want to warp around randomly (which we actually need, eve is way too POI focused) and significant changes to AB, interceptors and gallente ships.


Ah, what Star Trek fan hasn't dreamed of doing the Picard manoeuvre in EVE Twisted Evil. Certainly an intriguing notion to throw in the mix.


Maybe applying a strong agility penalty for active mwd and removing their autocycling capabilitiy would steer it in the right direction.

Edit: in this case however switching it off would have to result in an almost instant return to base speed.

Then give t2 frigs, dictors and vagabonds a bonus that allows them to fit ABs for the next bigger shipclass.


Wow, some grat ideas! I totally agree. Make MWDs hurtle pilots at massive speeds in a straight line -all agility out the window. And give Some T2 ships bonuses to where they can fit heavier ABs and still be agile. Excellent!

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.06.23 12:22:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 23/06/2008 12:24:13
Originally by: Duhmad IbnRa
Maybe applying a strong agility penalty for active mwd and removing their autocycling capabilitiy would steer it in the right direction.

The only problem with an agility change, whilst in theory a great way to promote MWDs purely for 'get there quick then turn off', is that pointing in a given direction in EVE is quite challenging.

That's not to say the idea has no merit, it does, but I can see issues when you accidentally find due to lag you're MWDing off in some random direction. One way to solve this is would be a much bigger change - at the moment we have 'warp to' as right-click options which cease once within a certain range. Instead of being able to turn MWDs on and off, you'd gain an 'MWD to' option which would achieve the above without the chance of drastic pilot error (just as other piloting like bumping into stuff is taken care of by the EVE server).

Edit: However I doubt this notion would get implemented as it's just too big a change for players to accept. For all the cries of 'adapt' that get thrown about, a lot really don't like doing so Smile

For that reason, my vote would still lie with an increase in sig radius, and changes to the way mass is calculated, which would actually have an agility impact anyway.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only