These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

The 5MN and 50MN Afterburners!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ivarr Kerensky
Kerensky Tactical Group
#21 - 2015-04-17 12:06:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ivarr Kerensky
Oversized prop mods always cause balance problems, adding more issues and unforeseen overpowered silly fits is not a good thing. Having more just for the sake of it being more is not logical and not needed, as It causes more trouble than it solves it serves no actual need.

Not supported.

Excellence is an attitude.
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#22 - 2015-04-17 15:06:21 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
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.


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. Pirate

Harvey James wrote:
you don't think that is is basically a stealth way of making bc's and dessies as fast as frigs and cruisers??


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. P


A fair point.

BS's should have a larger option as well, how about a 150MN or 200MN AB? Wouldn't be as fast as the MWD but gives you more options under scram / web. And let's be honest, a 100MN AB on a BS makes you go 250m/s which is hilarious.
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#23 - 2015-04-17 15:17:11 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:
I actually mentioned this earlier in a thread I made about limiting class fitting on oversized props. Having these helps people focus on speed without be absurd about it with 10mn or 100mn fits. +1



Yessir, and this is the real goal.
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#24 - 2015-04-17 15:25:00 UTC
Juan Mileghere wrote:
Redundant thread, not at a point where this wouldn't throw balance off without massively changing existing modules



Can you elaborate? Why would it unbalance the game?

If a 5mn AB required 25 or 30 power and required significant capacitor you would have to make some serious fitting choices. It would hurt active tanks substantially, as intended. Likewise a 50mn requires 250 or even 300 power, again, you have to make choices by downsizing your tank / guns / etc. Fits are so incredibly tight already; I can't see how it would be broken if done properly.

Except drone boats (lawl Ishtar) which for some weird reason have the same power grid as a laser boat.

However, even a 10mn AB on a frigate does not make you faster than a 1mn mwd. Which is fine, and as it should be.

The purpose is to give you options to go faster without having to use an MWD, but always be slower than said MWD for obvious reasons.
Phaade
Know-Nothings
Negative Feedback
#25 - 2015-04-17 15:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Cade Windstalker wrote:
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.


I do not agree with your argument.... AB's not being shut down by scrams is the entire purpose of using larger AB's (at a cost).

Sure you are still liable to be kited by that MWD slicer going 3500m/s, but trying to slingshot a decent pilot with your 1050m/s AB frigate is hilariously difficult / impossible. However if you can move at 1700 or 1800 m/s before overheating you might have a shot. Perhaps even a slingshot.

Also, you can more easily escape multiple MWD / scram tackle with a larger AB.

All that aside, why not have more options?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#26 - 2015-04-17 16:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Phaade wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
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.


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. Pirate

Harvey James wrote:
you don't think that is is basically a stealth way of making bc's and dessies as fast as frigs and cruisers??


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. P


A fair point.

BS's should have a larger option as well, how about a 150MN or 200MN AB? Wouldn't be as fast as the MWD but gives you more options under scram / web. And let's be honest, a 100MN AB on a BS makes you go 250m/s which is hilarious.


Indeed.

These 5/50/500 versions wouldn't exceed 50% (or some other lower figure) of the speeds possible with MWDs on respective hulls, while requiring higher fitting and cap consumption, and offering lower agility, acceleration & slower align times versus current 1/10/100 ABs.

Since there is no way to reduce shipmass in the game anymore, the module mass attribute alone offers so much flexibility, than you can create competitive speeds, but also at a great disadvantage.

Can be done. Smile

The original Need for Speed era circa 2007 dev blog in retrospect - http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/need-for-speed/

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

[Cruisers Online]
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#27 - 2015-04-17 16:54:35 UTC
or we can wait for them too get their module tiercide .. which they are on the coming soon list along with mwd's, plates,extenders

- restrained = reduce cap usage
-compact = lower fitting
-upgraded = faster
-T2 = faster still, higher fitting

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#28 - 2015-04-24 08:53:19 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
or we can wait for them too get their module tiercide .. which they are on the coming soon list along with mwd's, plates,extenders

- restrained = reduce cap usage
-compact = lower fitting
-upgraded = faster
-T2 = faster still, higher fitting


This:
A: does not fix the issues that sparked the idea (namely destroyers and BC issues with getting reasonable speed out of a traditional 1 or 10mn prop)
B: Does not necessarily fix the issues with over sized prop-mods that constitute most of the objections.
and finally:
C: has yet to be announced with a release date, so it is in the SOON™ range from next release to several years from now.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Cade Windstalker
#29 - 2015-04-24 09:10:03 UTC
Phaade wrote:
I do not agree with your argument.... AB's not being shut down by scrams is the entire purpose of using larger AB's (at a cost).

Sure you are still liable to be kited by that MWD slicer going 3500m/s, but trying to slingshot a decent pilot with your 1050m/s AB frigate is hilariously difficult / impossible. However if you can move at 1700 or 1800 m/s before overheating you might have a shot. Perhaps even a slingshot.

Also, you can more easily escape multiple MWD / scram tackle with a larger AB.

All that aside, why not have more options?


With the added mass you're still not going to be able to slingshot with an oversized prop mod like that. The only reason the Tactical Destroyers can do it is because they get a massive boost to agility in Propulsion Mode, and even with that running a 10MN AB on one of those things gives it an 11-14 second align time.

If someone gets a web on you with a 50MN AB you're going to slow down massively and they'll be able to swing around and grab you again before you can get out of range unless, for some silly reason, they care about getting tackled in return.

It's not that I'm exactly hugely against this idea, I just don't think the game needs another mostly useless module, since those are something the Tiericide is supposed to be getting rid of.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#30 - 2015-04-24 09:16:55 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


With the added mass you're still not going to be able to slingshot with an oversized prop mod like that. The only reason the Tactical Destroyers can do it is because they get a massive boost to agility in Propulsion Mode, and even with that running a 10MN AB on one of those things gives it an 11-14 second align time.

If someone gets a web on you with a 50MN AB you're going to slow down massively and they'll be able to swing around and grab you again before you can get out of range unless, for some silly reason, they care about getting tackled in return.

It's not that I'm exactly hugely against this idea, I just don't think the game needs another mostly useless module, since those are something the Tiericide is supposed to be getting rid of.


I'm not sure it would be quite that bad, especially if you are pulsing the prop mod. It would be one of those tricky fights where you need to remember to keep in the the right general direction for an align at all times, while still being active and mobile with a relatively ponderous ship, that brings the pain if it gets range control.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Sama Dobrota
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2015-04-24 10:07:58 UTC
Actually,

5MN Afterburner I, 5MN MicroWarpdrive I, 25MN Afterburner I, 25MN MicroWarpdrive I

are present in the game items dumps for a very long time, but never published by CCP
http://www.eve-guides.com/datadump/inventory.php?category_id=7&group_id=46
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#32 - 2015-04-24 10:34:28 UTC
I think a more reasonable route to go would be with these when they're introduced is to get rid of the numbering system on the name entirely, and tweak the numbers on all the prop mods to get PRECISELY the right numbers for cross-class balancing.

Good example would be following the active rep line of naming, with micro, small, medium, large and XL. The 5 and 50mn in this case would be small and larges respectively, and 100mns would be XL. Simple, easy solution to integration right there.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-04-24 10:35:45 UTC
Sama Dobrota wrote:
Actually,

5MN Afterburner I, 5MN MicroWarpdrive I, 25MN Afterburner I, 25MN MicroWarpdrive I

are present in the game items dumps for a very long time, but never published by CCP
http://www.eve-guides.com/datadump/inventory.php?category_id=7&group_id=46

'bumper burner' lol
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#34 - 2015-05-12 16:02:13 UTC
Bumparoo for a very good thread idea suggestion.

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

[Cruisers Online]
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#35 - 2015-05-12 16:04:23 UTC
Might need to rename things to keep it straight with the MWD name changes.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#36 - 2015-05-12 16:21:23 UTC
Previous page12