open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Speed-tank balancing : absolute top speed limits (class/race specific)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

Author Topic

Flawliss
Gallente
Pilots of True Potential
Posted - 2008.07.23 08:20:00 - [121]
 

There have been many many suggestions, however i agree with the sentiment that is outlined here (sorry for the eve search link, it just wont come up on the boards search function)

http://eve-search.com/thread/597162/page/1

As mentioned here, besides the excellent idea as far as the future of Webbing, options, tactics and a revival of mid range combat. A fix like this will allow a window to see if the current High speeds are really a problem that can not be solved with the Linked idea.

That we have is 2 extream problems. Very close range near complete webbing (or as near as 90% is) and High speeds outside that range that makes the gap seem even worse.

If CCP thinks seriously about Goumindong's Idea, we will be able to really see if any further changes need to be addressed, possible ending the need for both sides of the arguement, which seem highly polarized as it is.

It is my firm belief that the options contained in that thread (which really should be revived on the forums here.) would be the best, and healthiest improvement to eve combat we could ever hope for. and then move from there

I hope you will all read the thread and consider it calmly and objectively. As a pilot of both slow tanking ships, speed tankers, and a fan of the missing medium range option please take it all in with a wide angle view

Thank you

Merrick Tolkien
Shadow Company
Posted - 2008.07.23 10:10:00 - [122]
 

What about a "Structural Integrity" value. Speed and speed mods effect this value and the faster you go the closer it gets to a threshold at which your systems start failing.

The more speed mods/rigs you fit the lower the threshhold gets. Certain ships designed for speed get a better base threshold than those not designed with speed in mind, blame it on the wrong glue used to stick the seats together or what ever.

You would still get your really fast ships but when they hit threshold speed they lose all shield systems, go 25% above it and all armor resistance fail, 50% above it and no structure resistances either, just bare HP.

They would be able to go just as fast as now but taking massive risk if they do.

Would that or a version of it help?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:51:00 - [123]
 

I see a new devblog regarding SPEED NERF (because, yes, it is a global speed nerf is afoot : Linkage
Now, all those people in here that HAVE been complaining so far, wouldn't you say the CURRENTLY presented "nanofix" would be significantly more desirable than the flat speednerf CCP proposed ?

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:24:00 - [124]
 

Ah well, even I get the slight impression that they're goin a bit too far with the speed decrease.

Imho a better solution would start with:
Making pirate implants and gang bonuses mutually exclusive.
So only the higher bonus affects a pilot's ship.

This would serve a couple of purposes:
  • 1. Standard mods and rigs can remain stronger

  • 2. Pilots don't need a gang for the max bonus

  • 3. Overall maximum speed successfully reduced without making individual bonuses too weak.


Gang bonuses would be the 'cheap' solution while pirate implants would be more elitist. But both would have their use.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2008.07.30 03:59:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Akita T
wouldn't you say the CURRENTLY presented "nanofix" would be significantly more desirable than the flat speednerf CCP proposed ?


Er, CCP is proposing a flat speed limit and you're proposing a "nanofix"? I think you have mixed yourself up with CCP there.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:20:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 30/07/2008 11:22:43

CCP is proposing a DECREASE in all speed-boosting thingies (except afterburners).
Lower gang boost bonuses, lower snake effects, lower speed bonuses from modules and rigs, lower everything EXCEPT an increase in base speed for some of the smaller ships.
That's the flattest possible speednerf if I ever saw one.

What I'm proposing is to leave everything as it is, but simply cap the EFFECT on top speed, while also granting OTHER types of bonuses for whatever goes above that cap.
Which one of the two options do you think the current nano-flyers would actually prefer ?
The one CCP plans to implement (nerfing basically ALL possible larger-craft speed fits, and not only them), or the one I proposed (that ONLY affects ridiculously high-maintenance combos, and still doesn't affect them all that much to begin with due to the "compensations" granted) ?

What CCP plans to do affects all possible damage sources, with a significant increase in turret effectiveness too (my proposal would leave turret effectiveness almost identical, if not completely identical), not just the ones that actually needed any balancing (drones and missiles).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.02 01:41:00 - [127]
 

Anybody else want to take a shot expressing their opinion ?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.05 15:28:00 - [128]
 

Oh come on, you can't seriously like the changes CCP made more than this version, can you ?
Rolling Eyes


Boz Well
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.08.08 04:38:00 - [129]
 

I think this would be a much more reasonable suggestion than CCP's current "fix" (i.e. sledgehammer nerf).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.08 14:50:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Boz Well
I think this would be a much more reasonable suggestion than CCP's current "fix" (i.e. sledgehammer nerf).

My point exactly.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.09 21:51:00 - [131]
 

Anybody else ?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.12 20:04:00 - [132]
 

Rumourmill has it that the INITIAL over-the-top speed changes might have been either completely roled back or at least significantly changed... I'm curious to see what the new SiSi stats will look like after it comes back up (if the rumours are correct).

Plekto
Freedom United Consolidations - Inter Terrestrial
United For 0rder
Posted - 2008.08.13 00:05:00 - [133]
 

Just get rid of two things

1 - Polycarbon rigs. Gone.
2 - can't overload MWDs.

Entire problem solved. Easy to code as well - just change the modifier on the polycarbons to -0% mass and disable the activation for overload on MWDs.

Simple and solves the problems entirely, while still allowing fast ships(8-10K/sec isn't impossible, IMO, as 8k/sec is roughly escape velocity on Earth and fast missiles can go 10-12K with rigs and skills)

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2008.08.13 02:09:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 13/08/2008 02:12:11
Originally by: Plekto
Just get rid of two things

1 - Polycarbon rigs. Gone.
2 - can't overload MWDs.

Entire problem solved. Easy to code as well - just change the modifier on the polycarbons to -0% mass and disable the activation for overload on MWDs.

Simple and solves the problems entirely, while still allowing fast ships(8-10K/sec isn't impossible, IMO, as 8k/sec is roughly escape velocity on Earth and fast missiles can go 10-12K with rigs and skills)
Hm, I think that might perhaps be a bit radical.
I'd like the devs to test some changes along the lines of:

OverdriveI: 12-14%
OverdriveII: 15%

NanofiberI: 8%-10%
NanofiberII: 11%

Aux ThrustersI: 10%
Aux ThrustersII: 12.5%

PolycarbonI: 7.5%
PolycarbonII: 10.5%

Of course in addition to the non-stacking of pirate implants and gang bonuses (which allows the implants to remain stronger), plus some mass/base-speed changes to certain ships, which I think was a good approach (especially regarding AF's).
Maybe reduce the base MWD speed-bonus.
Maybe increase the mass-addition of MWDs (less top speed and agility).

Plekto
Freedom United Consolidations - Inter Terrestrial
United For 0rder
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:19:00 - [135]
 

The problem is that with the polycarbons lowering the mass in addition to the faction nanofibers, the mass is too low and the engine classifies it as a very small ship.

drop a 1 size larger MWD on it, say a 10MN on a AF and overload it suddenly the game engine thinks you stuffed a 100mn on a frigate sized vessel. The overloading is directly influenced by how little mass you have relative to the MWD size. It makes it stupidly easy to break the game engine.

All they have to do is do both and the other mods aren't even necessary.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.22 08:05:00 - [136]
 

Well, they removed one type of speed rig (turned them all into maxspeed rigs instead) shortly after their introduction.
All they'd need to do now is do the same to polycarbons... and problem half-solved.

Still, I believe this proposal is a slightly better alternative.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2008.09.05 03:35:00 - [137]
 

I think most of all the devs should prioritize very sharply.

The game-breaking effects are the huge optional bonuses (implants, boosters & gang bonuses), the one overpowered mod (polycarbons) and the stacking of different bonuses.

By reducing some and un-stack others, the whole speed thing gets a lot less extreme.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

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