open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked M for manditory in mwd still wont change..a fix..
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:30:00 - [1]
 

The "m for mandatory in mwd" concept has been around for quite a while, with the introduction of the nano-nerf, it seemed that this bug-bear that plagued the non-speed-designed ships has finally dissapeared.

Wrong.

Mwd's are mandatory due to gate reproaching/bubble escaping in fleets, not because of their effectiveness in combat. Unfortunatley, even post nano-nerf, mwd's will still be mandatory for fleets as they still pose the best way to re-approach gates, get in range, or escape from bubbles. So the non-speed-designed ships still cant truly "shine".

It seems a little lame that an Apocolypse, absolution, vulture, eagle, etc all obviously designed not-for-speed, must use a speed mod no matter what.

Therefore, I thought of a possible way to offset this..

When spawning on a gate after jumping, if each ship spawned a distance relative to their max speed away, with a minimum and maximum. Any ship that at max speed (with mwd on/off) and travels 1000ms or less, spawns at the typical range as is now. Between 1000ms and 3000ms, ships spawn an average of 5km longer away. 3000ms and over and ships spawn an extra 15km away..which is the max..

It will also encourage AB use on ships that will then get close to, but not quite over 1000ms..
CCP never needed to nerf nano, just adjust the mandatory effect of mwd's and perhaps remove redicolous speed fits via poly stacking..

Thoughts? Missing something?
Plz add ur ideas/comments


Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:37:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 04/09/2008 12:37:23
Quote:
Mwd's are mandatory due to gate reproaching/bubble escaping in fleets, not because of their effectiveness in combat. Unfortunatley, even post nano-nerf, mwd's will still be mandatory for fleets as they still pose the best way to re-approach gates, get in range, or escape from bubbles


Agreed. ABs will be only really be useful for smaller ships, in conjunction with scramblers, so they can deactivate a MWD and tracking-tank at close range. This will really help small ships like AFs, with their limited midslots - going from MWD, web and disruptor to AB and scrambler really helps their slots.

But I don't think it's a problem. MWDs themselves aren't really a problem atm, it's the other speed mods that create whatever people want to call "silly speed". If we tweak stuff like Snakes, gang speed bonuses and polycarbons a bit, then everything should be fine. Alternatively, there's the frenzied CCP nerf-hammer... Surprised

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:40:00 - [3]
 

Yes but i still think its lame that non-speed-desgned ships must use a speed mod..

I mean do you ever see a miner having to fit a weapon?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:44:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
Yes but i still think its lame that non-speed-designed ships must use a speed mod.


Are there really such ships? The NH may have problems fitting a MWD because of PG, but that's nothing that a PG boost won't fix.

Lamonadetomare
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:49:00 - [5]
 

the ships not designed for speed are the ships made for fleet work, read amarr & caldari especially BC and above.

that said if you using those ships for what they intended to do you dont need MWD, do you relly think a fleet of 100+ ppl should care about the 20-30 mans gate camp with rapiers?

what you ask is caldari/amarr to be good as minmatars/gallente in fast roaming gangs when they cant be as good as amarr/caldary in fleet battles.

Gartel Reiman
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
Posted - 2008.09.04 12:49:00 - [6]
 

This should probably be in Features and Ideas forum.

Asides from that, changing the location that people jump into system is not a new idea - and your system seems particularly odd in that you claim MWDs are necessary to get back to a gate - and you propose to counter this by moving fast ships further away from the gate? The MWD ships will still get back quicker than any other class of ship (specifically, faster than the AB users), but now have to travel even further to do so. One interesting side effect is that now you can't reach all ships' spawn locations with a T2 disruptor while sitting on the gate - which is probably a bad thing as it will lead to Lacheses and Rapiers being "required" for lowsec/highsec gatecamps, and as controlling a chokepoint is fairly important to combat, I wouldn't call this an improvement. Plus you've put some hard caps in there, which I'm completely opposed to (the whole "get as close to 1000m/s as you can without going over" thing strikes me as silly; make the range be a function of speed rather than having these hard edges if anything).

Additionally, while your idea doesn't do anything to improve the attractiveness of afterburners, the proposed changes undeniably do. Whether or not they do enough to affect the MWD being a default choice is yet to be seen; there's definitely a rock-paper-scissors aspect to it that makes ABs better in a non-neglible class of situations, and I think it requires testing on Tranquility to see how often these situations come up in practice.

I don't agree with your flat-out assertion that things will not change - with the current proposed changes, if the enemy has ships with scramblers fitted (especially an Arazu/Lach/Keres) then an AB will get you back to the gate quicker than a MWD, so it's definitely unfair to dismiss the impact out of hand by saying that MWDs do it faster. It's really a case of seeing how many ships fit scramblers in combat, and how easy it turns out to be in practice to scram a MWD-fitted ship.

So to conclude - thumbs down on the principle and practice of your proposal.

Ralagina
Caldari
ReviveX Fleet
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:10:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
Yes but i still think its lame that non-speed-desgned ships must use a speed mod..

I mean do you ever see a miner having to fit a weapon?


Do you ever see a miner having to fit a MWD?

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:16:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Gartel Reiman
This should probably be in Features and Ideas forum.

Asides from that, changing the location that people jump into system is not a new idea - and your system seems particularly odd in that you claim MWDs are necessary to get back to a gate -

Yes, any 0.0 fleet requires a mwd, simply for fleet maneuvering. The motd in bob gtc is "all ships bc and up requie a mwd" Wink

Quote:
and you propose to counter this by moving fast ships further away from the gate? The MWD ships will still get back quicker than any other class of ship (specifically, faster than the AB users), but now have to travel even further to do so. One interesting side effect is that now you can't reach all ships' spawn locations with a T2 disruptor while sitting on the gate - which is probably a bad thing as it will lead to Lacheses and Rapiers being "required" for lowsec/highsec gatecamps, and as controlling a chokepoint is fairly important to combat, I wouldn't call this an improvement.


No, an interceptor can ezily cover 50km before most non-frigs/agile cruisers can warp, and besides, these ships ussually cant be caught with current mechanisms as is.

Quote:
Plus you've put some hard caps in there, which I'm completely opposed to (the whole "get as close to 1000m/s as you can without going over" thing strikes me as silly; make the range be a function of speed rather than having these hard edges if anything).


Your quite right here, i was using this system so as not to make ships e.g. intercpetors spawn impossibly far from a gate, perhaps just adding max/min spawn range + your idea wld be better

Quote:
Additionally, while your idea doesn't do anything to improve the attractiveness of afterburners, the proposed changes undeniably do. Whether or not they do enough to affect the MWD being a default choice is yet to be seen; there's definitely a rock-paper-scissors aspect to it that makes ABs better in a non-neglible class of situations, and I think it requires testing on Tranquility to see how often these situations come up in practice.


AB's are useful in pvp, but due to neccesity of fleets to have mwds on ships, they arent used much, this may possibly change that.

Quote:
I don't agree with your flat-out assertion that things will not change - with the current proposed changes, if the enemy has ships with scramblers fitted (especially an Arazu/Lach/Keres) then an AB will get you back to the gate quicker than a MWD, so it's definitely unfair to dismiss the impact out of hand by saying that MWDs do it faster. It's really a case of seeing how many ships fit scramblers in combat, and how easy it turns out to be in practice to scram a MWD-fitted ship.

So to conclude - thumbs down on the principle and practice of your proposal.


While this is true, i still think that the driving force of the faster mwd is still important as, its not just for pvp, say an fc wants all ships to burn back to the gate while there sno hostiles on grid yet for defence puroposes etc, or they want to suddenly change destination for some reason, all ships must be as fast as possible->mwd's..AB use may equal mwd use for bubble escaping tho (which undeniabley have some kind of scram/tackle).

Thanks for the constructive post tho :D


BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:17:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Ralara
Originally by: BiggestT
Yes but i still think its lame that non-speed-desgned ships must use a speed mod..

I mean do you ever see a miner having to fit a weapon?


Do you ever see a miner having to fit a MWD?


Miner doesnt do pvp ops..

Although that point is rather vague, its more to highlight that ships that arent designed for a certain role, shouldnt be forced into said role..

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:19:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: BiggestT
Yes but i still think its lame that non-speed-designed ships must use a speed mod.


Are there really such ships? The NH may have problems fitting a MWD because of PG, but that's nothing that a PG boost won't fix.


cerb cant fit hams and mwd without gimp fit, ferox has problems, vulture has to sacrifice a much-needed mid (as do many ships) etc.

I can only speak for the ships i fly tho, so im not sure if its as much an issue for non-sniper/shield tnak ships..So i guess its more a caldari issue..

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:23:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2008 13:30:19
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2008 13:27:23
Originally by: BiggestT
Yes but i still think its lame that non-speed-desgned ships must use a speed mod..



Nothing lame about it. It's called engagement range, combat maneuvering and gtfo. ABs are going to be for small ships post patch which will have a unique and interesting use and are generally sufficent for range control etc - while MWDs generally for larger ships which do not need speed/transversal tanking, but rather range control, combat maneuvering and so on.

Scenario A.
Target at 22 km away. Me in a torp Typhoon with a truckload of plates/etc.

Choices:
(a) fire up MWD, get close, web target, unleash full damage output.
(b) do 200-ish DPS from drones while slowboating.
(c) fire up AB, get close a minute later, web target, unleash full damage output.

Obviously (b) and (c) are totally suboptimal.


Scenario B.
You jump through the gate. FC says to burn back to the gate (common for N reasons).

Choices:
(a) Fire up MWD, get back to jump range in 20-30s at most.
(b) Warp out, warp back in (faster then slowboating).
(c) Fire up AB, get back to jump range in over a minute or so.

Obviously (b) and (c) are totally suboptimal.

etc, etc.

Originally by: BiggestT

Although that point is rather vague, its more to highlight that ships that arent designed for a certain role, shouldnt be forced into said role..


Maneuvering, range control and running away aren't 'certain roles' - it's the crucial stuff of combat in general. Sure, you can ignore these things in certain cirrumstances (such as station hugging), but ships of any role need to preform all of these at times.

Originally by: BiggestT
Originally by: Gypsio III

Are there really such ships? The NH may have problems fitting a MWD because of PG, but that's nothing that a PG boost won't fix.


cerb cant fit hams and mwd without gimp fit, ferox has problems, vulture has to sacrifice a much-needed mid (as do many ships) etc.



Cerb is not really a HAM platform, it doesn't have the grid to support them with any reasonable fit.

The Sacriledge is much better suited to using HAMs - the Cerb for HMLs and firing at range. The only Caldari HAM platform is the Drake really.

Ferox has no problems fitting a MWD, anyway.

Vulture I have no idea about, I never saw anyone using a Fleet CS for anything except warfare links or bait.

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:44:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2008 13:30:19
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2008 13:27:23

Nothing lame about it. It's called engagement range, combat maneuvering and gtfo. ABs are going to be for small ships post patch which will have a unique and interesting use and are generally sufficent for range control etc - while MWDs generally for larger ships which do not need speed/transversal tanking, but rather range control, combat maneuvering and so on.

Scenario A.
Target at 22 km away. Me in a torp Typhoon with a truckload of plates/etc.

Choices:
(a) fire up MWD, get close, web target, unleash full damage output.
(b) do 200-ish DPS from drones while slowboating.
(c) fire up AB, get close a minute later, web target, unleash full damage output.

Obviously (b) and (c) are totally suboptimal.


Scenario B.
You jump through the gate. FC says to burn back to the gate (common for N reasons).

Choices:
(a) Fire up MWD, get back to jump range in 20-30s at most.
(b) Warp out, warp back in (faster then slowboating).
(c) Fire up AB, get back to jump range in over a minute or so.

Obviously (b) and (c) are totally suboptimal.


Ahh, thats what im saying..are u agreeing? Your highlighting how mandatory a mwd is..

Quote:

Maneuvering, range control and running away aren't 'certain roles' - it's the crucial stuff of combat in general. Sure, you can ignore these things in certain cirrumstances (such as station hugging), but ships of any role need to preform all of these at times.




Sure but the fact that X mod is required on EVERY ship for mandotory pvp tactics is imo not a good thing..


Quote:
Cerb is not really a HAM platform, it doesn't have the grid to support them with any reasonable fit.

The Sacriledge is much better suited to using HAMs - the Cerb for HMLs and firing at range. The only Caldari HAM platform is the Drake really.

Ferox has no problems fitting a MWD, anyway.

Vulture I have no idea about, I never saw anyone using a Fleet CS for anything except warfare links or bait.



Cerb gets bonus's to hams, it shld be able to use them effectively with the mandotory mwd.

Try fitting ur ferox for sniping past 150km, then tell me how easy fitting a mwd is

Vulture (and nighthawk) have little grid to spare, and lose a mid (should really be another LSE here or for the vulture, another sensorbooster/LSE) They were designed to tank (or tank+sniper), and are diminished in their role by needing to fit a mandatory mod..

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.04 13:57:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/09/2008 14:01:12
Originally by: BiggestT

Quote:

Maneuvering, range control and running away aren't 'certain roles' - it's the crucial stuff of combat in general. Sure, you can ignore these things in certain cirrumstances (such as station hugging), but ships of any role need to preform all of these at times.




Sure but the fact that X mod is required on EVERY ship for mandotory pvp tactics is imo not a good thing..



There's nothing bad about it. Generic fits in generic fleets want the most options they can possibly have.

It's akin to complaining about needing a warp disruptor or web or tank or guns, speed and maneuver is as crucial a concept as damage, durability and tackle are.


Originally by: BiggestT

Cerb gets bonus's to hams, it shld be able to use them effectively with the mandotory mwd.



The Cerb isn't a HAM platform. Yeah, it gets a bonus to them - fine, the Vagabond gets a bonus to artillery, too. They're just not valid fits.

Originally by: BiggestT

Try fitting ur ferox for sniping past 150km, then tell me how easy fitting a mwd is



Try fitting your any BC for hitting at mere 100km (and fit a MWD), and tell me how easy it is. Read, it's impossible. You're making a utterly extreme fit and you expect to make no compromises?

I was talking about a short-range Ferox fit. If I want to snipe at 100km with a arty Hurricane, I won't have a MWD either, because it's an extreme setup and, as extreme setups do, eats up all your mids. It's like saying "try fitting your Drake for 1200 DPS tank + MWD + HAMs, and tell me how easy it is". You're treating 150km range as something you should naturally have on a Ferox.

Originally by: BiggestT

Vulture (and nighthawk) have little grid to spare, and lose a mid (should really be another LSE here or for the vulture, another sensorbooster/LSE) They were designed to tank (or tank+sniper), and are diminished in their role by needing to fit a mandatory mod.



The fleet commands were designed for warfare links. If your highs are not full of warfare links (with any guns as an afterthought after you fit warfare links), well, you're not preforming the role the ships were intended for. Saying the Vulture is intended for tank + sniper is misunderstanding the role of fleet commands in general.

As for the NH, it's got a bad slot layout (the extra low is largely wasted) and gimped PG on top. Fitting a NH to have all it needs to have (which means, including a warfare link because flying a CS without one is utterly pointless) is next to impossible.


Saint Lazarus
Pwn 'N Play
Chaos Theory Alliance
Posted - 2008.09.04 14:02:00 - [14]
 

Good thing fleet ops aint mandatory Laughing

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 14:14:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko

There's nothing bad about it. Generic fits in generic fleets want the most options they can possibly have.

It's akin to complaining about needing a warp disruptor or web or tank or guns, speed and maneuver is as crucial a concept as damage, durability and tackle are.


Sure but disrupters and webs arent essential on every ship (just tacklers+heavy tacklers), mwd's are


Quote:

The Cerb isn't a HAM platform. Yeah, it gets a bonus to them - fine, the Vagabond gets a bonus to artillery, too. They're just not valid fits.




Then its a balance problem that ccp shld look at..A ship shld be able to utilise its bonus's
Quote:

Try fitting your any BC for hitting at mere 100km (and fit a MWD), and tell me how easy it is. Read, it's impossible. You're making a utterly extreme fit and you expect to make no compromises?


No, i have a ferox that ive been using in the maxage it has
6*250mm rail, 1 empty (slaveger fits lol)
2*Tracking computer 2*Sensor booster 1*mwd
1*mag stab 2*tracking enhancer 1*RCU
Its an excellent ship, 152km after falloff (138km optimal) non-primary means ive killed falcons etc before, but its silly that it HAS to have a mwd, its not designed for speed, plus the mwd means i need to gimp lows with rcu..

Quote:

The fleet commands were designed for warfare links. If your highs are not full of warfare links (with any guns as an afterthought after you fit warfare links), well, you're not preforming the role the ships were intended for. Saying the Vulture is intended for tank + sniper is misunderstanding the role of fleet commands in general.

As for the NH, it's got a bad slot layout (the extra low is largely wasted) and gimped PG on top. Fitting a NH to have all it needs to have (which means, including a warfare link because flying a CS without one is utterly pointless) is next to impossible.




Vulture is designed for tanking, sniping, and bonus's, hences its ship bonus's. It works quite well at all i think, but having to fit a mwd to take a valued mid is again taking away from its already stretched role, its not designed for speed!

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.04 14:31:00 - [16]
 

12 hour truce! I need sleep :P

Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
Posted - 2008.09.04 14:38:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
The "m for mandatory in mwd" concept has been around for quite a while, with the introduction of the nano-nerf, it seemed that this bug-bear that plagued the non-speed-designed ships has finally dissapeared.

Wrong.

Mwd's are mandatory due to gate reproaching/bubble escaping in fleets, not because of their effectiveness in combat.




"MWD for bubbles" has been the rule in fleet PVP for a long time, but I seriously doubt its effectiveness. I have been pretty active in PVP in the last couple of years (on my main) and I have only been in 2-3 situations where a MWD on a battleship saved me (all of which were POS situations btw., where spreading out would have helped also).

My humble opinion is that jumping into a bubble [camp] with a battleship and then trying to reapproach the gate quickly is uncommon, usually due to bad intel and not something you need to be able to do. If you jump into a large mobile with your fleet and need to get out quickly, just shoot the bubble, it's just as fast if not faster. If you get dictor bubbled, tough luck, you should have seen it coming. Use logistics/remote reps, kill the HIC, use the AB (20Km at 400m/s is just 50s and that's the worst case).

Fleet battles might actually become more fun if people won't focus exclusively on running away if primaried or outgunned. After all, that's not what you do in Capital battles either, you spider-tank and try to find the most suitable targets.


Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.09.04 14:52:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
12 hour truce! I need sleep :P


I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "designed for". This only defines some properties which have been enhanced. Some ships enjoy better multi-role capabilities than others, like the Mach vs an Arma for ex.

But speed has always been a prime advantage in anything related to combat, here and everywhere else, no matter if the framework is antique or SciFi, both in defense and offense. If someone unleashes a Dobermann up your butt, you'll be happy to gtfo fast, no matter if you were "designed" for speed or not Wink

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.04 15:20:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: BiggestT
Originally by: Cpt Branko

There's nothing bad about it. Generic fits in generic fleets want the most options they can possibly have.

It's akin to complaining about needing a warp disruptor or web or tank or guns, speed and maneuver is as crucial a concept as damage, durability and tackle are.


Sure but disrupters and webs arent essential on every ship (just tacklers+heavy tacklers), mwd's are



Sure, but all the concepts are equally valid on a fleet role as well as a personal role, just that in fleets you can move some things to specialized ships (tackle), while damage, durability and speed are still the responsibilities of ships on a individual scale. They're core combat concepts and there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.

Originally by: BiggestT

Quote:

The Cerb isn't a HAM platform. Yeah, it gets a bonus to them - fine, the Vagabond gets a bonus to artillery, too. They're just not valid fits.



Then its a balance problem that ccp shld look at..A ship shld be able to utilise its bonus's



No, not every ship should be able to utilize its bonuses at the same time. Some ships are designed with certain weapon systems in mind (like, Vagabond for ACs, Cerb for HMLs or in some cases AMLs, Munnin for artillery, etc) - there is nothing wrong with that.

If anything, enabling ships to use all their bonuses without heavy sacrifices would create a total balance nightmare, as fittings would have to go up across the board (to accomodate the fact that ships also recieve bonuses for the much harder to fit long range guns) and in many cases obliterate the individual flavour of ships.


Originally by: BiggestT

Quote:

Try fitting your any BC for hitting at mere 100km (and fit a MWD), and tell me how easy it is. Read, it's impossible. You're making a utterly extreme fit and you expect to make no compromises?



No, i have a ferox that ive been using in the maxage it has
6*250mm rail, 1 empty (slaveger fits lol)
2*Tracking computer 2*Sensor booster 1*mwd
1*mag stab 2*tracking enhancer 1*RCU
Its an excellent ship, 152km after falloff (138km optimal) non-primary means ive killed falcons etc before, but its silly that it HAS to have a mwd, its not designed for speed, plus the mwd means i need to gimp lows with rcu..



That's quite fine really.

You want to have it all, that's the problem. Your Ferox, in addition to preforming a specialist role (150km sniping) which BCs (much less Tier 1 BCs) are generally totally incapable of doing, while fitting all the modules you want/need, and without fitting mods? Nobody can do that.

There's ships which just cannot use their higher tier (short-range, even) guns without gimping their fits totally. To get the most out of a certain role (range or DPS or whatever) you need to sacrifice something, a single RCU is not a big deal.

A Hurricane pilot wishing to snipe at 100km (99km optimal + 22km falloff) is forced to fit a RCU as well, and a tankless fit. Comes with fitting for extremes.

Originally by: BiggestT

Vulture is designed for tanking, sniping, and bonus's, hences its ship bonus's.



Frankly, the Eagle does a better job if you want a sniper. What you're saying is preety much akin to 'Damnation is made for HAMs' - sure, if you look at only at ship bonuses and draw conclusions - but a Sacrilege does it better and the Damnation is really made for warfare links and/or buffer. Fleet commands are for warfare links first and foremost. Whatever sniping you do is just an afterthought, there's cheaper ships which do a better job at it.

Originally by: BiggestT

It works quite well at all i think, but having to fit a mwd to take a valued mid is again taking away from its already stretched role, its not designed for speed!


Frigates are not designed to tank, yet you need some sort of buffer on them generally even though they're not designed for tank.

Maneuver/range control/gtfo is as much of a fundamental combat principle as damage, tank and tackle is.


Isean
Kinky Killing Kleptomaniacs
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2008.09.10 12:09:00 - [20]
 

Throwing it out there that the post the devs had about the nano nerf said they were considering SCRAMBLERS, not disrupters, the 7.5k ones, would be able to turn off MWD and keep them off in targets.

It would mean frigs have a point in pvp again, to get in, scram (thus turn their MWD off), and web them some, even after the changes...while other ships get close enough. Re-introduce tackling

Mona X
Caldari
Missions Mining and Mayhem
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.09.10 13:24:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Pan Crastus
Use logistics/remote reps, kill the HIC, use the AB (20Km at 400m/s is just 50s and that's the worst case).



In the age when everyone and his mother can drop on you a titan or two, ship that can't execute GTFO maneuver is a dead ship.

Trigos Trilobi
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.09.10 14:05:00 - [22]
 

What if the overheat speed bonus on ABs would be increased considerably, even close to mwd speeds? Like, overheated AB would give 300% or even 400% speed bonus. Then you'd have your gtfo/get in range quick ability available in a pinch, but it'd be limited by your med slots burning useless if used it too much. Of course the AB cycle time / heat damage might need tuning a bit.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.10 14:18:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
What if the overheat speed bonus on ABs would be increased considerably, even close to mwd speeds? Like, overheated AB would give 300% or even 400% speed bonus. Then you'd have your gtfo/get in range quick ability available in a pinch, but it'd be limited by your med slots burning useless if used it too much. Of course the AB cycle time / heat damage might need tuning a bit.


That'd make ABs much more general purpose then they're now? Very Happy

I suggested something along those lines quite a bit of times. It wouldn't be a balance issue (because it's still inferior to MWD, but not that much - also it burns out your mids if you attempt to use it the same way you'd use a MWD but w/out penalities).

400% speed bonus would make it a very interesting option - MWD would still be better (particularly heated) for gtfo, but you'd still have a option which you currently do not have.

Meridius Dex
Amarr
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.09.10 14:20:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Pan Crastus
"MWD for bubbles" has been the rule in fleet PVP for a long time, but I seriously doubt its effectiveness. I have been pretty active in PVP in the last couple of years (on my main) and I have only been in 2-3 situations where a MWD on a battleship saved me (all of which were POS situations btw., where spreading out would have helped also).

My humble opinion is that jumping into a bubble [camp] with a battleship and then trying to reapproach the gate quickly is uncommon, usually due to bad intel and not something you need to be able to do. If you jump into a large mobile with your fleet and need to get out quickly, just shoot the bubble, it's just as fast if not faster. If you get dictor bubbled, tough luck, you should have seen it coming. Use logistics/remote reps, kill the HIC, use the AB (20Km at 400m/s is just 50s and that's the worst case).

Fleet battles might actually become more fun if people won't focus exclusively on running away if primaried or outgunned. After all, that's not what you do in Capital battles either, you spider-tank and try to find the most suitable targets.



Smartest damn reply in the whole thread. Anyone who's ever really pvped in this game (which seems to be surprisingly few people that post on the forums) would know this to be true.

Pteranodon
Caldari
Rekall Incorporated
Posted - 2008.09.10 14:43:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Pteranodon on 10/09/2008 14:50:46
Edited by: Pteranodon on 10/09/2008 14:47:36
on a side note-since all ships can warp with no skills-since it is a requirement to move in space I just dont see why all ships cant have a "micro warp drive" ability as standard. Enough of all this crap with fitting a module or skill training. I think this should be built into every ship as standard-not having it feels like driving a car without an accelerator. Why should I nerf my ship to get something deeemed as pretty much essential.

I agree using the facility should have constraints like nerfing cap recharge but fitting this module & training skills-I wish CCP would rethink the whole space manoeuvring logic.

My thoughts would be that this skill is perfected in the base levels of the ships we train-get to level 5 & we get maximum speed & efficency to this capability. You only have to stick a little button on the interface which is a go faster mode-how hard can that be?

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2008.09.10 14:55:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Pan Crastus

My humble opinion is that jumping into a bubble [camp] with a battleship and then trying to reapproach the gate quickly is uncommon, usually due to bad intel and not something you need to be able to do.



It is common when you got the right intel and you jump in to bust the camp. You don't mwd back to gate to jump out but to get in RR range of each others. No way you can achieve that with AB.

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2008.09.10 14:58:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Meridius Dex
Originally by: Pan Crastus
"MWD for bubbles" has been the rule in fleet PVP for a long time, but I seriously doubt its effectiveness. I have been pretty active in PVP in the last couple of years (on my main) and I have only been in 2-3 situations where a MWD on a battleship saved me (all of which were POS situations btw., where spreading out would have helped also).

My humble opinion is that jumping into a bubble [camp] with a battleship and then trying to reapproach the gate quickly is uncommon, usually due to bad intel and not something you need to be able to do. If you jump into a large mobile with your fleet and need to get out quickly, just shoot the bubble, it's just as fast if not faster. If you get dictor bubbled, tough luck, you should have seen it coming. Use logistics/remote reps, kill the HIC, use the AB (20Km at 400m/s is just 50s and that's the worst case).

Fleet battles might actually become more fun if people won't focus exclusively on running away if primaried or outgunned. After all, that's not what you do in Capital battles either, you spider-tank and try to find the most suitable targets.



Smartest damn reply in the whole thread. Anyone who's ever really pvped in this game (which seems to be surprisingly few people that post on the forums) would know this to be true.


Well you obviously dont pvp if you dont think a mwd is essential,
his post didnt..
a- address that i was talking about ALL ships (not exclusively bs)
b- argue the point that mwd's ar needed for fleet maneuvering, particualrly for reproaching gates when changing direction, defensive tactics etc, not just bubbles.

The fact that any sniper bs needs a mwd and the motd in gbc is "all bc's and bs need a mwd" is saying something, unless you think they havnt pvp'd before dex Rolling Eyes

Meridius Dex
Amarr
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.09.10 15:14:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: BiggestT

Well you obviously dont pvp if you dont think a mwd is essential,
his post didnt..
a- address that i was talking about ALL ships (not exclusively bs)
b- argue the point that mwd's ar needed for fleet maneuvering, particualrly for reproaching gates when changing direction, defensive tactics etc, not just bubbles.

The fact that any sniper bs needs a mwd and the motd in gbc is "all bc's and bs need a mwd" is saying something, unless you think they havnt pvp'd before dex Rolling Eyes
Sorry, I would love to post a reply to this point. But as stated before, my new forum policy is to not address any post in which a ghey eye-rolling emoticon is employed. [shrug]

Gavin Darklighter
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.09.10 16:25:00 - [29]
 

MWD might be essential in 0.0, but not for low-sec or empire war. Useful, yes, but not mandatory.

Merdaneth
Amarr
Defensores Fidei
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.09.10 17:37:00 - [30]
 

MWD's being mandatory in 0.0 is not the result of propulsion mod balancing (although there are plenty things wrong with those) but that of Stargates, jump in ranges and bubble ranges.



 

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