These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Weak Sauce?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#1 - 2012-05-15 22:20:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Is anyone else after testing, underwhelmed by the new modules?

Drone damage modifier and the ancillary shield booster seem to be the better/most useful.

However the new harder? Cap Battery, lock breaker (has anyone tested this yet?) seem pre-nerfed to oblivion. Given CCP's continually poor record on balance iteration (yes, we're still pissed about gallente), I would very much like it that they got it right the first time.

It's important because the game needs a shake up, fittings threads need a change, tactics need to be redrawn and fleet comps need to be reset.

ARMOR ADAPTIVE HARDENER
3% change every 10 seconds should be 6% change every 10 seconds, ultimately. 10 seconds is a freaking long time in most engagements. For it to take minutes to switch from one to another goes waaaay beyond sensibly limiting the modules usefulness.
Given how useful ancillary shield boosters can be, and how no armour version exists a little more love on this mod would be nice.

CAPACITOR BATTERY (ALL SIZES)
Either reduce the fitting costs of this module or vastly increase the % of reflected cap drain. As it stands, you'll still get neuted and ******, you still blow slots and fittings on something less useful and a CPR or cap recharger most of the time, and less useful than a cap injector all of the time.

INTRINSIC DAMAGE AMPLIFIER
Should be a highslot module, should have a 30-40% drone damage modifier. Or, you could go about properly balancing drone ships with even more CPU, less turret slots and more drone bandwidth because as they stand, this module is pretty freaking useless.

LOCK BREAKER
BS only is a promising aspect. But the scan resolution really sucks. Turns it into a solely into a pointless GTFO module on a class of ships people avoid flying when they would need GTFO modules. Needs a serious rethink.




I'm actually quite concerned. When CCP releases something pre-nerfed, it remains pre-nerfed for an exceptionally long time, what ever happened to having strong effects and strong counters, providing a dynamically adjusting equilibrium? I'd understand the caution if a couple of dozen modules where being introduced at the same time, but it's a handful - there not even strong within the limited scope of application they have.

It feels like a return to the CCP of Old, the one that released black-ops, that beyond super caps, hasn't iterated on any ship balance for years, and is satisfied with introducing stuff no one is excited about into the game.

Prove me wrong.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2012-05-16 01:49:27 UTC
I agree on all acounts, when i heard new mods i was hopign eve would get shaken up a bit, like the micro jump drive still might. im not excited about any of the mods but the drone damage one, because it will make my gila less of a pve boat and make me more inclined to pvp in it.

the armor mod is way to slow, like the shield mod i dont see it being super useful out side 1v1s

tho lock breaker is ok but i could care less about more gtfo mods

the cpu rigs and the web drones are nice aditiosn but they should have been around long ago.

and the cap batteries still take to much grid to fit.
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#3 - 2012-05-16 02:24:38 UTC
Those are meh: weapons modules adds 10% speed and 10.5% damage, drone modules - 19% damage. Most sad fact (besides CCP hate drones) is they were added* for testing 1+ week before they will/should go live - i.e. without actual tests and feedback except for "hey, +10% is too low compared to weapon upgrades" in another thread.

* I've tried to find extrinsic drone module today on market and failed miserable - they are not available. Same for ancillary shield boosters. Probably someone forgot to add them to seeding list - with Rattlesnake this situation lasts for years.
Callic Veratar
#4 - 2012-05-16 03:45:08 UTC
Consider that the Lockbreaker and AAH are T1 mods. Would you consider them equivalent to other T1 modules? I suspect that you might be comparing them to what exists in the T2 realm.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#5 - 2012-05-16 06:23:27 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Consider that the Lockbreaker and AAH are T1 mods. Would you consider them equivalent to other T1 modules? I suspect that you might be comparing them to what exists in the T2 realm.

Meta levels considered, these modules are still exceptionally weak. Drone damage module provides roughly half the damage increase as a turret module provides. Given that drones almost always account for less base dps and these modules have the high CPU requirements, it's officially pre-nerfed.

The blockbreaker module works ONLY on battleships, and has a passive -80% scan resolution penalty. Yeah.

As for the cap battery:
Vortex wrote:
Running some quick numbers:

Triage Archon: 715.8 cap/s peak recharge

1x LCBII Triage Archon: 578.8 cap/s peak recharge

= 137 cap/s drop

With 12.5% neuting reflection, break even point = 1,096 cap/s neuting incoming (137 * (1/0.125))

Bhaal = 306.25 cap/s

Break even: 3.5 Full-neut Bhaals neuting you.


With a 12.5% cap reflection on LCBs, this won't change anything for triage carriers. Due to the stacking penalized-free nature of cap modules, the first dropped module is the largest hit to your capacitor. So you'll either want to run pure LCBs (for maximum reflection), or pure cap rechargers (for maximum cap/s). Its possible some sort of weird LCB Carrier fit might pop up (return of Pantheon carriers?) with strategic use of in-fight carrier refitting, but otherwise the LCB reflection doesn't change the equation any - the opportunity cost is just far too steep.

For traditional fits, I don't see it changing anything either. If you are getting neuted a "scary" amount (and that amount varies by ship and fitting), reflecting 12.5% of it back isn't going to save your bacon. Ships like a Curse and Bhaal are still going to easily win that capacitor fight, and once you are capped out its game over. I'd still rather have an injector and actually power my modules with well timed bursts than try to inconvenience the enemy ship.


Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#6 - 2012-05-16 06:24:34 UTC
Lipbite wrote:
Those are meh: weapons modules adds 10% speed and 10.5% damage, drone modules - 19% damage. Most sad fact (besides CCP hate drones) is they were added* for testing 1+ week before they will/should go live - i.e. without actual tests and feedback except for "hey, +10% is too low compared to weapon upgrades" in another thread.

* I've tried to find extrinsic drone module today on market and failed miserable - they are not available. Same for ancillary shield boosters. Probably someone forgot to add them to seeding list - with Rattlesnake this situation lasts for years.

They are seeded in the test system only atm.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#7 - 2012-05-16 08:30:11 UTC
Lipbite wrote:

* I've tried to find extrinsic drone module today on market and failed miserable - they are not available. Same for ancillary shield boosters. Probably someone forgot to add them to seeding list - with Rattlesnake this situation lasts for years.


Available in Jita but they changed the name for this mod to : Drone Damage Amplifier.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-05-16 12:33:47 UTC
Adaptive Armour Hardener
Certainly not as good for armour as the shield booster is for shields. A great concept but just a little slow to adapt, really perhaps only suitable for ships with massive EHP or a long sustained tank where it has time to adapt. Not great for PVE but perhaps not terrible, did not feel it was changing in a decent ratio of the damage received, seemed to just even out at 30/30 when facing two damage types. Needs to cycle faster and take less cap if it does. I may be tempted to use it instead of an explosive hardener for FW plexing, improves resistance against NPC’s and can possibly cover the exp hole during pvp but only if it is cheap enough, the release method sounds like it will not be especially cheap at first.

Drone Damage Mod
Is at the minimum level it needs to be at now at 19%. Still only worth it if you can throw out at least 4 bonused heavies and don’t have a full rack of decent sized guns. Even a weak secondary affect to speed would be useful.
That said it does improve the drone Proteus and Ishtar although fitting is tight and perhaps obsoletes the sentry rigs especially the T1 rig.

Webifier Drones
Bit weak, lots of ships have a limited drone bay so I can understand the lights but to commit to say 3-5 medium webifier drones is a lot of drone bay for not a great benefit.
If you are kiting and have spare tiny drone bay then it’s perhaps another useful tool.

Cap Batteries
The effect is not too bad and interestingly does not vary through the meta levels, so you may be better off with the meta 4 cap battery. Still it’s the ridiculous fitting and a lack of a decent battleship sized version; the affect is interesting and I would be willing to commit more power grid in a battleship for a better bonus.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#9 - 2012-05-16 13:21:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tomcio FromFarAway
Alticus C Bear wrote:

That said it does improve the drone Proteus...


Correction - it GREATLY improves the drone Proteus.Big smile

But it is mostly because of :
- no fitting issues
- ability to fit three DDA's maintaining very good tank

Fitting Ishtar will be much more....problematic.