These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

The 5MN and 50MN Afterburners!

Author
Phaade
Proioxis Assault Force
Rogue Caldari Union
#1 - 2015-04-16 15:48:43 UTC
Quite simply: two new classes of AB's that have fitting requirements and speed bonuses right between 1MN - 10MN and 10MN - 100MN. Because reasons and variety. Details of mass addition / thrust / fitting reqs can be worked out by CCP.

The original concept was to naturally fit these new classes of AB's to ships in between sizes like Destroyers and Battlecruisers. Of course it now gives more options for slightly oversized AB's on frigates and cruisers. Variety! Choices!

I believe that standard class AB's (ie. 1MN on a Frig) don't provide enough speed to be effective in the majority of situations relative to MWD's. 10MN on frigates, however, add too much mass for frigates to remain maneuverable (unless links, lawl). The 5MN and 50MN AB solves all problems! Or something. And let's be honest, some shipyard researcher somewhere would be like "hey guys, why not slightly bigger AB's?!"

Might be hard to balance with the Sansha ship line AB bonus. Things can be done to alleviate that.

Thoughts?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2 - 2015-04-16 16:24:26 UTC
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.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#3 - 2015-04-16 16:56:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Agreed that current AB speeds are not competitive enough, however, why not change their max velocity bonus, or the thrust factor while also increasing fitting reqs instead of creating a completely new sub-tier of modules? Blink

Vengeance w/ 1MN AB II clocks at 860 / 1290 OH m/s.
With a 1MN AB II a Confessor goes 655 / 808 OH m/s and 866 / 1300 m/s OH in Propulsion mode

Since AF and other frigates have lower mass, a thrust value increase scales well without giving undue advantage to larger hulls like Destroyers, observe: Current 1MN AB II Thrust is 1,500,000 kg with added 500,000 kg module mass on activation.

Increasing Thrust to 2,000,000 kg, or by 33% we get the following for a:

1) Vengeance: 341 m/s * (1 + (1.6875 AB boost * (2,000,000 kg AB Thrust / (1,163,000 kg shipmass + 500,000 kg AB mass))) = 1,033 / 1549 OH m/s

2) Confessor (Second Pass attributes): 299 m/s * (1+ (1.6875 * (2,000,000 Thrust / (2,000,000 shipmass + 500,000 AB mass))) = 702 / 1,053 OH m/s and 1169 / 1754 OH m/s in Propulsion mode.

The 33% buff has been taken as an arbitrary value by me. You could also create your 5MN AB with the above stats, if changing 1MNs is out of the question. P

Would playing with thrust values in such a way break anything on any level?

Discuss. Smile

P.S. Call it 3MN, if anything. Lol
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#4 - 2015-04-16 17:18:22 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:

Would playing with thrust values in such a way break anything on any level?

Discuss. Smile

P.S. Call it 3MN, if anything. Lol


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.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#5 - 2015-04-16 17:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Need for Speed II.

/not sure yet

Where do you see T3Ds with 5MNs fitted - near, far of 1MN MWD speeds? Blink What I have in the above examples is 16-20% increase in topspeed over 1ABs.

Reasonable.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#6 - 2015-04-16 17:39:38 UTC
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.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#7 - 2015-04-16 17:46:26 UTC
you don't think that is is basically a stealth way of making bc's and dessies as fast as frigs and cruisers??

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

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#8 - 2015-04-16 17:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
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 behaviorâ„¢.

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
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#9 - 2015-04-16 17:46:54 UTC
they should be 3.1 and 31.6 MN AB's - based on the log10 sequence
(10^0, 10^1, 10^2)
insert 10^0.5 [=3.1 (1dp)] and 10^1.5 [=31.6 (1dp)]
but I think AB's need to be looked at, HARD

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Arla Sarain
#10 - 2015-04-16 18:48:26 UTC
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.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#11 - 2015-04-16 18:50:14 UTC
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
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#12 - 2015-04-16 19:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:
they should be 3.1 and 31.6 MN AB's - based on the log10 sequence
(10^0, 10^1, 10^2)
insert 10^0.5 [=3.1 (1dp)] and 10^1.5 [=31.6 (1dp)]
but I think AB's need to be looked at, HARD

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.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#13 - 2015-04-16 19:17:54 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:


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

Or 500MN and the fabled 1GN prop mod, which is sized for carriers, and makes battleships able to kite cruisers in a straight line.

I was making the presumption that such options as 3 and 5 would be available for battleships, and to make it so the props for capital alignment tricks aren't so terribly undersized.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2015-04-16 19:55:46 UTC
Did you even bother using the search tool first? No.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#15 - 2015-04-16 19:58:54 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Did you even bother using the search tool first? No.

Most recent other thread for this that came up when I searched is dead. I'd give people the benefit of the doubt on those.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2015-04-16 20:46:16 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Quite simply: two new classes of AB's that have fitting requirements and speed bonuses right between 1MN - 10MN and 10MN - 100MN. Because reasons and variety. Details of mass addition / thrust / fitting reqs can be worked out by CCP.

The original concept was to naturally fit these new classes of AB's to ships in between sizes like Destroyers and Battlecruisers. Of course it now gives more options for slightly oversized AB's on frigates and cruisers. Variety! Choices!

I believe that standard class AB's (ie. 1MN on a Frig) don't provide enough speed to be effective in the majority of situations relative to MWD's. 10MN on frigates, however, add too much mass for frigates to remain maneuverable (unless links, lawl). The 5MN and 50MN AB solves all problems! Or something. And let's be honest, some shipyard researcher somewhere would be like "hey guys, why not slightly bigger AB's?!"

Might be hard to balance with the Sansha ship line AB bonus. Things can be done to alleviate that.

Thoughts?


Make it quick. No!

-1
Juan Mileghere
Sea World
#17 - 2015-04-16 21:00:55 UTC
Redundant thread, not at a point where this wouldn't throw balance off without massively changing existing modules
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#18 - 2015-04-16 21:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
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.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#19 - 2015-04-17 05:16:24 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
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.


..or they could increase the speed boost from 168% to 250% instead?

An overheated mwd gives you +900% speed. But that doesn't solve a problem - scrams. In this nano age 2.0 everyone tries to do the same thing everyone else does, mitigating damage as much as possible. Be it with either speed or singature or both.

Afterburners also happen to not get shut down by scrams, so you can still move. Movement is your lifeline, hence the oversized afterburners.

Now if only someone could have predicted something like this six months ago and proposed something unthinkable..

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Cade Windstalker
#20 - 2015-04-17 06:02:45 UTC
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.
12Next page