These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Afterburner Rebalance

Author
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#1 - 2015-10-14 06:30:15 UTC
Currently, afterburners give the same mass penalty as microwarpdrives. Should this be changed so that they give a smaller mass penalty? I haven't done the math on this so I am not totally sure, but I was thinking this would help make the slightly more viable over the MWD in some more fields.
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#2 - 2015-10-14 06:47:59 UTC
MWD can be shut down, give a large sig radius (+350-500%), use more cap and have cap penalty (X type and 2 officer MWD have no cap penalty, limited to 500MN)
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#3 - 2015-10-14 06:58:53 UTC
Yes I am aware of this, it just seems odd to me that they have the same mass penalty. Although those penalties you mentioned are relevant to the application of the prop mods they have little to do with the agility and velocity factors that are being effected here. It just seems to me that the 5MN MWD should add 500k kg of mass, and that the 1MN AB adds that same amount of mass, instead of providing 100k kg instead.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#4 - 2015-10-14 07:00:34 UTC
It's fairly deliberate that Afterburners make for poor agility I believe.
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#5 - 2015-10-14 07:03:49 UTC
But for just as low agility as microwarpdrives?
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-10-14 07:16:00 UTC
Having 6x the signature radius (+500%) and having 20% less max capasitor is a high cost. If you enemy shut down your MWD you still have -20% capacitor making you that much easier/faster to neut dry

For speed/sig tanking AB is better, for pure speed MWD is better

Using T2 module numbers, diffrent meta levels have diffrent sig/cap penalty
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#7 - 2015-10-14 07:24:29 UTC
You are not answering the question I proposed. Did I word something oddly? I am aware of the penalties and costs, I am aware of what the general purposes of the two prop mods are. I am asking what would be the balancing issues if the mass penalty for ABs were decreased in order to make them better at the "speed tanking" aspect of their role.
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#8 - 2015-10-14 07:39:48 UTC
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
You are not answering the question I proposed. Did I word something oddly? I am aware of the penalties and costs, I am aware of what the general purposes of the two prop mods are. I am asking what would be the balancing issues if the mass penalty for ABs were decreased in order to make them better at the "speed tanking" aspect of their role.


They are already the best module for "speed tanking" by a large margin (not counting ship bonuses)
So the balancing issue with boosting the best module is that speed tanking would become even better, small/fast ships are already very strong
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#9 - 2015-10-14 07:44:37 UTC
I can understand that.
Nyalnara
Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions
#10 - 2015-10-14 11:51:45 UTC
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#11 - 2015-10-14 12:43:44 UTC
Nyalnara wrote:
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...


The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-10-14 13:21:10 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...


The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.


How do you suggest we do that.
Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2015-10-14 13:52:36 UTC
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...


The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.


How do you suggest we do that.
Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?


Or you could just put a "role" tag on them like the 2 different MJD...
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#14 - 2015-10-14 15:52:44 UTC
i have suggested this before reducing mass on AB's so its lower than mwd's but until they ban oversized AB's this would be bad, but i think people are turning towards the idea of banning oversized props, on the recent AB pass i suggested making more roles in particular an agility based one which would fit in with the lower mass and AB's do need a speed buff one way or another especially if webs won't get any nerfs.

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

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#15 - 2015-10-14 16:12:51 UTC
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...


The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.


How do you suggest we do that.
Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?


Just make it so it can only fit on the appropriate class.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#16 - 2015-10-14 17:14:31 UTC
Good thing you people aren't the decision makers of this game.

Afterburners and mwds are perfectly fine and working as intended.

Get over it.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#17 - 2015-10-14 17:37:29 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Good thing you people aren't the decision makers of this game.

Afterburners and mwds are perfectly fine and working as intended.

Get over it.



Easy there. If you read this carefully it is probably one of the more civil and productive threads in this section. Go get some panties that fit properly and rejoin the discussion on an even keel.

I think the OP has been subdued by logical explanation. All is well here.

As a side note - I think we can all get our brains around an afterburner, what it is and what it does. I think we can all agree that a MWD is (at the time of writing this response) pretty much made up space sciencemagic. I think the OP is imagining the blue swirly flash MWD and is using that to deduce AB should add less mass (blue swirly flash MWD being big and bulky). Most of the reponders seem to be imagining the red/orange spertzenberger style MWD. These models are both small and sexy and comparable to the AB in size.

Since CCP has never clearly stated one way or the other on the blue swirly flash vs. red/orange spertzenberger drives I don't think it's really appropirate for us to debate the mass issue. It would be nice to add visual modules (akin to swapping t3 subs) to ships so we could actually see the AB or MWD attached to the ship.

Adding this graphical functionality would:
- improve immersion
- settle this mass debate
- prevent the fitting of oversized drives on ships
- elliminate the silly practice of dual prop fitting certain ships

Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#18 - 2015-10-14 18:16:40 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...


The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.


How do you suggest we do that.
Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?


Just make it so it can only fit on the appropriate class.


Then i would assume you want all tank mods limited to only the appropriate class?
Frigate - 100mm armor plate, Destroyer 200mm armor plate and so on (fits perfect with 1600mm plate limited to BS)
Azazel The Misanthrope
Oblivion's Pendulum
Top Tier
#19 - 2015-10-14 18:52:02 UTC
I disagree that afterburners and MWDs are working "fine" as intended. The way it works now, AB is a niche equipment piece optimized for low sec complexes (where combat ranges can intentionally be kept short) Generally speaking they are tactically sub-par to MWDs all around.

Webs in conjunction with neuts in many cases can make an afterburner just as useful as an MWD within scram ranges seeing as, under webs, ABs still suffer the mass penalty induced from being active; alternatively, if the AB was to be deactivated they would be horrendously slowed in comparison to their opponent. They may be working good enough, but I certainly wouldn't say that there isn't room for improvement.

Nothing, so far, has been subdued as far as the OP stands. I do agree that things could be kept unanimously civil, however I disagree that your point about "Blue Swirly Flash" sciencemagic (whatever that is even supposed to mean) and that OP is being made based on aesthetic issue.

The mass gain attributed to propulsion is made to simulate a concept called "momentum" which is not "sciencemagic" generally speaking, objects that move faster have more momentum, when an object has particularly high momentum, (either due to more velocity or more mass) more force is required to deter this object from whatever its current vectoring is.

With that being said does it really not make sense that an object that provides literally 5x the thrust (and therefore 5x the simulated momentum) of the second object would have 5 times the mass addition of the said second object?

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#20 - 2015-10-14 18:52:30 UTC
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Haatakan Reppola wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...


The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.


How do you suggest we do that.
Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?


Just make it so it can only fit on the appropriate class.


Then i would assume you want all tank mods limited to only the appropriate class?
Frigate - 100mm armor plate, Destroyer 200mm armor plate and so on (fits perfect with 1600mm plate limited to BS)


Absolutely. I have suggested that elsewhere.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

123Next page