Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I like this idea, and have liked it every time it has come up.

Personally I feel placing them at about 3/4 the next size up for fitting requirements for about a 35-40% increase in effectiveness would be a good spot, as they then become the way to get oversized props without needing to crap all over the fit to make room, and low enough increase in performance to not simply obsolete the existing prop mods.

I would like to see 1, 3, 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100MN ABs, with the ability to tune your size of prop to the ship size and available fitting room, with 3, 5, 25 and 50 being less efficient with the fitting and cap they pull, but nearly as hard to fit on destroyers and BCs as 10 and 100MN ABs. This then gives a reason to use ABs to kite, as heavier or larger hulls get an ability to either go whole hog and fit a class up, or use one of the larger sub-class ABs, and makes prop mod choice an even more interesting aspect of a fit.

Yep, and I really like your implementation of it, as it makes the mass of the hulls (and their plates) a much larger factor in determining final speed with different sized of AB if such a thing came to pass.

re: D3s and 3 & 5 MN ABs
I would see them taking similar trade-offs for them as they currently do to make up 10mn AB fits, for less total speed. Which is to say annoying, but now much easier to catch and kill.

re: Need for speed II
Great game. Not sure why we're talking about it in eve forums. [ /sarc]
Trying to figure out ways to make it more interesting than just cramming 10mn props on all frigs and destroyers, and 100mn on all cruisers and BCs.

The intermediary tier versions would need to have the appropriate fitting reqs, increased cap usage :where justified: and most importantly increased module mass on activation - i.e. 750,000 kg vs. 500,000 kg with current 1MNs. Module mass can always be offset with more thrust, netting the desired speed levels with the disadvantage of lower agility, acceleration and align times.

The variety and disparity in performance of the same hulls flying alongside with different prop mods will be... interesting emergent behavior™.

I approve.



Not if properly handled, i.e. 5MN ABs not exceeding 50% of the speeds possible with 1MN MWDs on the hull in question -> Apply the same ratio to cruiser-sized mid-tiers.

Besides, no one says that we can't have a new 300MN AB for a Battleship. Xaxaxa, Hohoho.

In principle, I do agree that it perpetuates Cruisers Online with Battleships at a yet another disadvantage.

1MN ABs need to lose some PG.

50 PG on a cruiser is nothing in comparison to 10 on a frig.

1MN AB destroyers are too slow to care.

Round em off to 3mn 32mn.

As for 1mn ABs:
On a frigate, you build around the prop mod. On a cruiser, you build around the weapons and on a Battleship you build around the tank.

Considering the different priorities, the heaviness of an AB/MWD on a frigate is the first thing that needs to be accounted for in building a fit.

Did you even bother using the search tool first? No.

Make it quick. No!

-1

No, 2MN and 20MN, get it right! ~X(

A 5MN afterburner would likely cost some 30MW powergrid and the Experimental meta variant would give a Coercer a 284.6% velocity boost.

It's simple, match the mass. If you want to get really even, you should make a 1.5MN and 15MN, since destroyer and battlecruiser mass are only about 50% higher than the next size down, but they could easily be bumped up a third in mass if they were given a prop mod their own size, since they would be less dependent on the lower size.

So, problem with this. Functionally, in a lot of applications, Speed is pretty much all or nothing. You're either faster than the target or you're not and a prop mod like this would land pretty solidly in the "not" category.

Over-sized AB fits are powerful because they end up with similar speed to a Microwarpdrive but without the disadvantage of being Warp Scrambled, which means you can generally still escape a webbing enemy without a web yourself provided you can turn off the enemy's MWD.

Looking at the case of, for example, a stock Vagabond with All Vs skills a 10MN MWD pushes the speed to ~2500, a 10MN AB pushes it to only around ~950, and a 100MN AB pushes the speed to around ~1900. This puts a "50MN AB" somewhere in the realm of 1300 to 1500kph which is significantly slower already than a MWD fit.

With a web applied the 100MN fit drops down to ~750kph and the 10MN AB fit drops down to around ~370, which is about the base speed of the ship. This means a 50MN AB would only really be able to do ~450kph at best, which isn't enough to realistically escape a tackling ship if one gets to you, nor is it enough to maintain range on a MWD fitted ship since their base speed is around 700kph faster than yours at least, which means it's unsuitable for serious kiting since they'll close on you too quickly and at that point they start taking less damage due to tracking and dealing more due to proximity.

It's not that I'm inherently opposed to this idea, but I don't really see the point or advantage to adding these to the game. Maybe the 50MN would see some use on Battlecruisers, probably in missions and the like, but even then the fittings on those are generally balanced for the existing prop mods and the utility seems pretty minimal.