These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[April] Battlecruiser Warp Speed and Warp Rig Tweaks

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2015-04-10 11:06:25 UTC
afkalt wrote:
T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'.



CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#222 - 2015-04-10 11:22:28 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Actually changing plates can be done in a very neutral way. Change 800mm plates to 1600mm stats, etc all the way down. Then create a new 1600mm plate. This lets Cruisers still have exactly the same stats as currently, removes the plate that no-one at all uses, and gives Battleships a larger plate. Alternatively.... You could give Battleships and BC's more EHP, especially Battleships, which would get them into the range of being able to effectively use the +15% armour modules instead. Not sure if there is a matching shield module which gives straight percentage bonus? Never looked at Shields in the cap range so not sure. Something would have to be done to ensure shield BS's & BC's didn't get left in the dirt.

Damage application doesn't scale the way you claim Cade, because you used a very very particular weapon system & fit there, which fell right on the edge of damage application. And I doubt you did the test 100 times for RNG variation also.
Other fits would have utterly different responses to damage application.


This assumes that there's literally no use-case for the smallest size of plate, which may not be the case, or that throwing a 3200mm plate into the game would have a good result to overall balance. (Also they'd have to introduce a new item or everyone would have to re-fit all of their ships and re-buy a lot of modules and would be rather pissed about that)

As for Shield ships they get active omni-hardeners and passive regen, Armor gets the option for % increases and a larger plate. Overall it works out fairly balanced most of the time, but the two types of tank have different benefits and therefore different applications.

I still don't agree that tweaking these modules actually fixes the issue with at best tangentially related ships either. If there's an issue with these hulls then it's an issue with something unique to those hulls, not the modules or weapons, and it's easiest to fix the issue by addressing it at the root instead of doing something that has a massive impact on the game as a whole.

Also I didn't test it in-game, that wouldn't be reliable, I threw together a damage graph in EFT and ran the numbers that way. It's massively impractical to run various fits, I simply threw together a match up that I felt was a fairly good representation of the effect of a Plate or Extender on a Cruiser's incoming DPS to demonstrate that there is, in-fact, a trade off to fitting that kind of buffer onto a Cruiser hull.


I think the idea is to try to address the issue of both Battlecruisers and Battleships having relatively weak tanks by introducing an "XL" module to be used on both BC's and BS's (BS's would double up).

Currently the relative tanking difference between cruisers and BC's is quite small (even though on paper it looks larger). This is because BC's have roughly twice the signature radius of cruisers and are slower to boot. This is by design so that BS's can curb stomp them. There for reducing BC sig rad is problematic as it would make them tankier vs BS's which isn't desirable.

Increasing native HP pools is an option but it doesn't take away the fact that cruisers are fitting BS sized modules that are increasing their HP by more than their native HP pool. Applying the same tanking module to a BC which only increasing it's HP pool then fractionally is out of wack.
I''l give you the numbers to make it even clearer how bonkers this all is:
a T2 1600mm plate gives you an additional 4800 armour HP
a Maller has a base armour HP pool of 2875 (1600mm plate gives + 167% to it's armour pool)
A Prophecy has a base armour HP pool of 6875 (1600mm plate gives +69% to it's armour pool)
An Abaddon has a base armour HP pool of 10625 (1600mm plate gives +45% to it's armour pool)
That is way too much of a bonus to the cruiser relatively speaking. Especially when it is really easly to get a 1600mm plate on a cruiser.

This is why plates and extenders need to change. Shift all plates one place to the left and delete the 50mm plates. They really don't get used anyways



Right on the spot...a t least some people seems to be able to use rational thinking and understand the implications of aproposal beyond "MY OWN SHIP AND ITS CURRENT FITTING"

And to add to these numbers. With my proposed shift of 50% to PG and HP (that woudl he a HALF shift to left not a full 1 plate size shift)

Cruisers would use 800 plates that would add 3200 HP. so 111% of their base armor pool.
The prohpecy with 800 would go to 46% (same as current battleship level).. and if it sacrifices a bit on its weaponry and fitting, it would go to use a 1600 plate doing now 7200 HP. That is 104%
The abaddon would go to 67%

That is CLEARLY MUCH MUCH more well balanced!!!



just something that came to my mind while I was reading your discussion;

what if plates (and extenders) would work more like layered plating (something one uses rarely anyway. adaptive plating is much more useful...), making the added amount of tank dependent on the ship they are fitted to?
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2015-04-10 11:59:47 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Kagura Nikon wrote:
afkalt wrote:
T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'.



CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool.



Hah, no.

Not in C6.


Edit: I agree in general, PvP > PvE balance but this would require a do-over of a bunch of other content and mess with overall WH state of balance, occupancy and play.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#224 - 2015-04-10 12:50:42 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
afkalt wrote:
T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'.



CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool.

There are two conflated problems here.

WH content requires extremely powerful ships to be run. There are 3 real patterns to the WH t3s I have seen.

C1-3 T3s are typically built fairly lightly, with a local active tank, or a single slot spider tank. With tons of DPS and as much application as they can, they're reasonable as a surprise for someone dropping in on them, or to hunt a frigate gang, but they aren't the sort of mainline combatant that people keep getting mad about.

C5-6 sites will eat a recon alive, and you effectively require a mostly tank fit in one or more racks, with at least some level of shiny tank modules required to do it effectively. This is because you have content that is meant to throw threatening DPS out at capitals, but which requires subcap support to run effectively. PVP takes those same fits, and with the same sort of logistics, makes them almost unkillable, as they have stellar damage mitigation and healthy buffer pools, or healthy mitigation and insane buffer pools.

The third pattern is the PVP t3s which are designed to maintain hole control, but they vary massively by which type of WH they are supposed to maintain hole control in.

But these aren't the t3 fleets and fits that predominate in PVP. The t3s that predominate aren't the super-tanked reconish with some DPS ships that are needed for the WH sites. They're either the HAC+ confgurations, usually taking advantage of the slot layout mechanics to create beastly armor tanks with room for 2-3 damage mods , or interdiction nullified and otherwise taking advantage of the unique combinations found on t3s, like slipery petes. These ships are designed from the hull out to do one or 2 things very well. Much of the problem comes in because they can set up bonuses that are unique or nearly so, like being interdiction nullified and extremely hard to probe, while being fairly tanky due to the excellent mitigation.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2015-04-10 15:11:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
James Baboli wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
afkalt wrote:
T3's need the EHP for high end WH content, just sayin'.



CCp clearly disagrees, because PVP balance is over the PVE balance. One way or the other CCP will nerf t3 a lot, and WH peopel will have to adapt into other ships. Command ships could very well fit that role with the proposed changes. They will increase substantially their EHP pool.

There are two conflated problems here.

WH content requires extremely powerful ships to be run. There are 3 real patterns to the WH t3s I have seen.

C1-3 T3s are typically built fairly lightly, with a local active tank, or a single slot spider tank. With tons of DPS and as much application as they can, they're reasonable as a surprise for someone dropping in on them, or to hunt a frigate gang, but they aren't the sort of mainline combatant that people keep getting mad about.

C5-6 sites will eat a recon alive, and you effectively require a mostly tank fit in one or more racks, with at least some level of shiny tank modules required to do it effectively. This is because you have content that is meant to throw threatening DPS out at capitals, but which requires subcap support to run effectively. PVP takes those same fits, and with the same sort of logistics, makes them almost unkillable, as they have stellar damage mitigation and healthy buffer pools, or healthy mitigation and insane buffer pools.

The third pattern is the PVP t3s which are designed to maintain hole control, but they vary massively by which type of WH they are supposed to maintain hole control in.

But these aren't the t3 fleets and fits that predominate in PVP. The t3s that predominate aren't the super-tanked reconish with some DPS ships that are needed for the WH sites. They're either the HAC+ confgurations, usually taking advantage of the slot layout mechanics to create beastly armor tanks with room for 2-3 damage mods , or interdiction nullified and otherwise taking advantage of the unique combinations found on t3s, like slipery petes. These ships are designed from the hull out to do one or 2 things very well. Much of the problem comes in because they can set up bonuses that are unique or nearly so, like being interdiction nullified and extremely hard to probe, while being fairly tanky due to the excellent mitigation.



Since the T3 that are use there do not need guns, they will still probably be able to fit the new plates. For example, isntead of 3 1600 plates, you fit 2 of the new ones. Same fitting.. and SAME EXACT EHP. That is not an option for PVP ships since a 3 plates no weapons ship is not exactly main stream PVP material.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Cade Windstalker
#226 - 2015-04-11 12:01:54 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Havign a tradeoff does not mean it is meaningful

A 1600 plate more than DOUBLE the EHP on cruisers that fit it, and reduce their speed by what? some 15% That is not a tradeoff. that is a massively skewed scenario that leads to min maxing... all or nothing. Compare a 800 plate to a 1600. The speed difference is not that big, but the EHP difference is humongous. And since most t2 and t3 cruisers can fit a 1600, then it becomes a no brainer.

If you make 1600 VERY VERY hard to fit on these cruisers then suddenly BC and specially battleships gain a foothold on their main theoretical advantages.

As of today, a proteus still have more EHP than most battleships... while staying FAR more mobile, and smalller that is BEYOND dispute as being BROKEN. IF at most those ships could use was a 800mm things would be WAYYY more balanced.


The trade off here is definitely meaningful, you seem to want the trade off to be crippling. There's no problem with cruisers, especially T2 and T3 Cruisers, being able to fit 1600 plates and LSEs. You are literally the only person I've ever heard complain about this. The difference between an 800 and 1600 plate may

Kagura Nikon wrote:
No it does not tie the ship to the module. On the opposite and that is where you are havign short vision. Right now the buffer plate on a cruiser is more important than the cruiser itself. You could fix that changing the hulls, but you would need to change almsot ALL hulls in game and woudl be far far more complicated to balance.


No, this is only true if you feel that the current state of those modules is a problem. It's not, the game is balanced around those modules being how they are. The problem that this thread is at least tangentially related to is the balance of Battlecrusiers (and to a very small extent battleships). If those are the ships that are having trouble then balance those ships instead of tweaking one module for one style of tanking to try and tangentially make those ships more relevant. That's way more complicated than just buffing the relevant ships for the same reason that if something is over-powered it gets nerfed instead of everything else getting a buff.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
...snip for word count...

No, the game was NOT intentionaly balanced in a way that Cruisers, that were made to be MOBILE focused, can Squeeze out ALL their modules to fit an oversized tank that chalanges or even SURPASSES battleships, while battleships that were supposed to be the damage sponges can at most fit SMALL buffer modules ( because 1600 plates are at most that relative to their base hulls) and effectively are WORSE at tanking than T3s and most t2 cruisers.


The game was designed intentionally by CCP, these modules have been in more or less this state since the game launched, and they've been tweaked and adjusted since then. Their state is very definitely intentional, as is the state of the ships that can fit them.

Also a 1600 plate increases the HP (after skills, no less) of a Megathron by 50%. That's still a significant increase, and the Megathron suffers significantly from the drawbacks of fitting the module. It only takes slighly less than 3% of the Megathron's powergrid, and 4.4% of its CPU. The align time increases from 10.5s to 10.8s. In comparison a Thorax gives up 56% of its base PG (all values here after skills) and 8% of its CPU, and its align time shoots up from 5.2s to 6.5s.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
I do not know form what hole you got those numbers of yours, but is not from eve. A caracal increases its signature by 20% when it fits a large shield extender. So at MOST it will increase its received damage by 20% on the apex of the curve, and on scenarios where it could already be tracked more or less easily even less change. A thorax with 1600 plate and AB of with NO plate when you add the "depending on the distance" of your sentence.. both take ZERO DAMAGE from a maelstrom in REAL EVE, not EFT!!! Hint for the uninformed, the EFT formula doe snot work EXACTLY as the in game for the extreme scenarios! It is an extrapolation of the game, and is not an 100% math at the apex of the derivative change on the correlation of tracking and signature , that happens for instance on very close combat. That is why AB cruisers at 1 km are immune to most battleships.

Please, go PLAY THE GAME, and do some real combat to know how things REALLY work out. People use always large extenders and 1600 paltes for a reason.. THEY ARE MASSIVELY advantageous. you take TINY bit ammount more damage than with the MEDIUm extender adn 800 plate for TWICE more EHP.


Actually the places where it's tracked less easily are the places where the sig increase results in a greater damage increase, and that's now how sig increases affect damage output. Check the formula if you don't believe me and check your mechanics before you make incorrect claims about my math, and yes EFT's formula is exactly the formula in the game, I just posted it. It's the average damage at that range and those conditions. You may take more or less damage as a result of the random nature of damage application in Eve but on average that's the DPS you'll take over a sustained period of time.

Yes, Plates and Extenders are more advantageous on smaller ships, that's intentional and is very very very unlikely to change so either get used to it or stop playing. Either way this isn't the thread for this.
Cade Windstalker
#227 - 2015-04-11 12:08:39 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:

This is why plates and extenders need to change. Shift all plates one place to the left and delete the 50mm plates. They really don't get used anyways


Hafta agree on plates/extenders here. Long overdue - and T3 EHP levels have shown that.

A tiercide-type review would give clearer vision to BS and BC roles, but is ~effort~.


T3 EHP is due to T3 level resists and subsystem abilities more than their ability to fit 1600 plates. That's why Command Ships don't get near T3 levels of EHP. Also changing fittings 1600 plates wouldn't actually fix T3s:

Kagura Nikon wrote:
Since the T3 that are use there do not need guns, they will still probably be able to fit the new plates. For example, isntead of 3 1600 plates, you fit 2 of the new ones. Same fitting.. and SAME EXACT EHP. That is not an option for PVP ships since a 3 plates no weapons ship is not exactly main stream PVP material.


At which point we have now established that your change won't even fix the thing you're complaining about.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#228 - 2015-04-11 12:37:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:

This is why plates and extenders need to change. Shift all plates one place to the left and delete the 50mm plates. They really don't get used anyways


Hafta agree on plates/extenders here. Long overdue - and T3 EHP levels have shown that.

A tiercide-type review would give clearer vision to BS and BC roles, but is ~effort~.


T3 EHP is due to T3 level resists and subsystem abilities more than their ability to fit 1600 plates.


Does-not-compute. Smile It is especially horrendous when viewed like this. Smile

A single 1600mm plate shoots Legion's EHP from 70k to 141k - doubles it, and Armour HP from 11.4k -> 25.9k, which is a 127% increase. Smile

A 800mm plate ups EHP 70k -> 106k, Armour HP 11.4k -> 18.5k = 62% increase.

Now, the 800mm scenario is a lot more reasonable, since a 1600mm plate on a Bhaalgorn, as an example, gives only a 44% increase. Smile

However, we like things gud so we fit 2x 1600mms and Electrons on our Protei. Smile

TL;DR: Cruisers Online.

http://i.imgur.com/z4ynWV9.png

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Cade Windstalker
#229 - 2015-04-11 12:43:46 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
T3 EHP is due to T3 level resists and subsystem abilities more than their ability to fit 1600 plates.


Does-not-compute. Smile It is especially horrendous when viewed like this. Smile

A single 1600mm plate shoots Legion's EHP from 70k to 141k - doubles it, and Armour HP from 11.4k -> 25.9k, which is a 127% increase. Smile

A 800mm plate ups EHP 70k -> 106k, Armour HP 11.4k -> 18.5k = 62% increase.

Now, the 800mm scenario is a lot more reasonable, since a 1600mm plate on a Bhaalgorn, as an example, gives only a 44% increase. Smile

However, we like things gud so we fit 2x 1600mms and Electrons on our Protei. Smile[/quote]

And if you fit the same plate on a hypothetical cruiser with the same base hull HP and T1 or even T2 resists you don't get near the same EHP, in absolute terms. You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower. That's why CCP nerfed T3 defensive subsystems instead of nerfing 1600 plates.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#230 - 2015-04-11 12:53:15 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:

You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower.


Does not compute.Smile

No. Smile

Thorax with a 1600mm RT 13.5k EHP -> 29.6k = Doubles, yes, Armour HP 2.6k -> 9.5k 265% increase. Big smile

Battleships and BC need either a new 2400/3200mm/w/e plate, or 1600mm PG hafta be raised.

Cruisers Online Smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Cade Windstalker
#231 - 2015-04-11 12:56:23 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:

You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower.


Does not compute.Smile

No. Smile

Thorax with a 1600mm RT 13.5k EHP -> 29.6k = Doubles, yes, Armour HP 2.6k -> 9.5k 265% increase. Big smile

Battleships and BC need either a new 2400/3200mm/w/e plate, or 1600mm PG hafta be raised.

Cruisers Online Smile


I don't think you read my entire post, I said a hypothetical cruiser with the same base Armor HP, not a Thorax, and either way 9.5k is a long way from 140k. The difference there comes from the high base resists of the T3 Cruisers.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#232 - 2015-04-11 12:59:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The difference there comes from the high base resists of the T3 Cruisers.


Are you trying to be Cpt. Obvious? Smile

We're telling you of the ratios here, but do continue speaking a lot, while saying nothing at all. At this rate, T3/Ishtar/Sentry/T3D rebalance should be done by the year 2017, with BC & BS review sometime in the year 2019.

Enjoy your Heroic cruiser warfare. Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#233 - 2015-04-11 22:52:51 UTC
So just to say, the change to rigs has allowed me to do magical things with dreads and makes my armour mega MUCH easier to work with.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#234 - 2015-04-11 23:33:51 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


At which point we have now established that your change won't even fix the thing you're complaining about.



Youa re the ONLY one that cannot see how it fixes, you are the only one sttuborn enough that want to keep things as they are and create myths about how the game was made or not.

But hat does not matter. Rise and Fozzie are far more intelligent than that and eventually they will see the truth in this need.

A hint, if you cannot bring any REAl argumentation in this forum, you are just practicing weak forum fu, it will change in nothing how the devs see the issues. They do pay attention, but only when you bring meaningful propositions, such as this one, that is so clear that the majority immediately could see its effect.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2015-04-11 23:35:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So just to say, the change to rigs has allowed me to do magical things with dreads and makes my armour mega MUCH easier to work with.



and? that was exaclty the idea of the changes...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2015-04-11 23:50:05 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


And if you fit the same plate on a hypothetical cruiser with the same base hull HP and T1 or even T2 resists you don't get near the same EHP, in absolute terms. You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower. That's why CCP nerfed T3 defensive subsystems instead of nerfing 1600 plates.



The proposal is NOT a nerf.. is a MAJOR BUFF to 1600 plates.. at least when fitted where they were supposed to be used

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kally Kendrick
Fiaskko Enterprises
#237 - 2015-04-12 00:19:41 UTC
I use warp speed rigs on figates I use to get around low sec/FW systems and to quickly nip to markets for ammo and so on. If this sig radius penalty is too steep and I can now get caught in gate camps then I feel like that is counter-productive to the use of these rigs.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#238 - 2015-04-12 09:01:38 UTC
Kally Kendrick wrote:
I use warp speed rigs on figates I use to get around low sec/FW systems and to quickly nip to markets for ammo and so on. If this sig radius penalty is too steep and I can now get caught in gate camps then I feel like that is counter-productive to the use of these rigs.


Interceptors will still be neigh uncatchable and you also have access to cov ops frigs and the blockade runner.
Cade Windstalker
#239 - 2015-04-13 04:56:58 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


And if you fit the same plate on a hypothetical cruiser with the same base hull HP and T1 or even T2 resists you don't get near the same EHP, in absolute terms. You get the same percent increase but the final EHP is significantly lower. That's why CCP nerfed T3 defensive subsystems instead of nerfing 1600 plates.



The proposal is NOT a nerf.. is a MAJOR BUFF to 1600 plates.. at least when fitted where they were supposed to be used


Your proposal is a change, I never said it was a nerf or a buff, especially not in that sentence. I said that CCP nerfed the EHP of T3 cruisers by adjusting their subsystems' traits instead of the modules they use.

Kagura Nikon wrote:
Youa re the ONLY one that cannot see how it fixes, you are the only one sttuborn enough that want to keep things as they are and create myths about how the game was made or not.

But hat does not matter. Rise and Fozzie are far more intelligent than that and eventually they will see the truth in this need.

A hint, if you cannot bring any REAl argumentation in this forum, you are just practicing weak forum fu, it will change in nothing how the devs see the issues. They do pay attention, but only when you bring meaningful propositions, such as this one, that is so clear that the majority immediately could see its effect.


I see exactly what you're trying to 'fix' I just don't think it's a problem. You say that fitting these plates to Cruisers and BCs and the amount of EHP that they give is the source of the current disparity, I think that's incorrect and that what you're proposing will do more harm than good by completely invalidating the entirety of the current meta anywhere these modules are used.

Also your sample size here for "only one" is like... two other people who have said they like your idea?

I already gave you numbers here. Cruisers may get a huge amount of EHP from these over-sized modules but they trade a huge amount of fitting space for it which helps balance things out with other fits. This has been the case since they were introduced and the ships are balanced around this trade-off.

In the end you're actually allowing them to get almost the same EHP by just fitting a size down for more fitting space, because the HP per PG on an 800 Plate is 10.4 while the HP per PG on a 1600 plate is just 8.3. As it is a T1 Cruiser needs substantial fitting mods to fit an over-sized tank and large guns, while T2 Cruisers are designed to fit these over-sized tank mods, which shows up in the old HAC rebalance threads. The state of these mods, and the ability of small hulls to get a lot out of them at the cost of a significant amount of fitting space, is very definitely intentional and has been maintained by the current dev staff.

You also haven't provided much of an argument for removing it beyond "OMG they get so much out of this! Battleships only get a 56% boost!!!". Okay? So what's the problem with that? They pay a ton in fittings, Battleships don't, and Battleships have a much much higher base EHP. The same way that over-sized prop mods aren't something CCP are looking to stamp out these over-sized tank mods have been around since the start of Eve and are going to continue to be around.
Alexis Nightwish
#240 - 2015-04-13 16:26:15 UTC
Love the warp speed changes to BCs/CSs, thanks! P


Hate the warp speed rig changes. As someone who only uses them on ships I don't want caught, increasing the sig is a pretty significant nerf and it's collateral damage from an attempted fix to a separate aspect of the game.

Consider this instead: Give warp speed rigs a penalty to capacitor usage to initiate warp. Make it enough to give people pause, but not enough to be crippling. Maybe a base of +100% cap usage (which can be reduced to +50% via the appropriate rigging skill)?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers