These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[June] [Updated] Module Tiericide - Afterburners & Microwarpdrives

First post First post
Author
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#361 - 2015-05-15 16:18:32 UTC
How many of ieland's finest hookers would it take to get the velocity-boost/sig-bloom defaults from 500% towards 400%?
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#362 - 2015-05-15 16:20:54 UTC
Lloyd Roses wrote:
How many of ieland's finest hookers would it take to get the velocity-boost/sig-bloom defaults from 500% towards 400%?

Probably all of them. Way too many people like the 500% numbers to change that quickly, though keeping the defaults matched is more likely than the people asking for only one or the other.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#363 - 2015-05-15 17:15:16 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.

Not asking for T1 to be better than meta, but for there to be meaningful choices when it comes to selecting your modules.

This is an example that i drew up from another thread.

5MN Microwarpdrive I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Compact Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1 ; Powergrid 14 (-1); CPU 21 (-4); Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Enduring Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 35 (-10); Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Restrained Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -20(-5); Signature Bonus 450%(-50); Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

(New Concept Item) 5MN Upgraded Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 505 (+5)%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Microwarpdrive II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 17; CPU 25; Activation 50; Cap Penalty -20; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 510 (+10)%; Overload Bonus 50%]



Honestly this is kinda what I was thinking they would do for all T1 mods vs metas. T1 is less than T2 we get that. We like that. Problem is that T1 is so bad compared to even the most common meta or even their T2's that its completely pointless.

T1 = basic Meta = the basic with specializations. T2 = better but with higher skill and fitting requirements
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#364 - 2015-05-15 18:24:47 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.

Not asking for T1 to be better than meta, but for there to be meaningful choices when it comes to selecting your modules.

This is an example that i drew up from another thread.

5MN Microwarpdrive I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Compact Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1 ; Powergrid 14 (-1); CPU 21 (-4); Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Enduring Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 35 (-10); Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Restrained Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -20(-5); Signature Bonus 450%(-50); Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

(New Concept Item) 5MN Upgraded Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 505 (+5)%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Microwarpdrive II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 17; CPU 25; Activation 50; Cap Penalty -20; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 510 (+10)%; Overload Bonus 50%]



Honestly this is kinda what I was thinking they would do for all T1 mods vs metas. T1 is less than T2 we get that. We like that. Problem is that T1 is so bad compared to even the most common meta or even their T2's that its completely pointless.

T1 = basic Meta = the basic with specializations. T2 = better but with higher skill and fitting requirements

Who cares? When is the last time you strapped t1 to anything? If ccp wants t1 to be used when its strictly inferior to meta then thats their faulty logic and the onus is on them. Just go about your business using cheap meta or t2
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#365 - 2015-05-15 18:57:00 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's

Whats your reasoning for this?


Lots of ships have a 50% reduction to MWD bloom. Assault Frigates, Interdictors, Heavy Assault Cruisers, some T3 destroyers... It should ring a few bells that maybe there is a need? I mean, if too many ships have the same role bonus, maybe there is an issue with the module they are bonusing.

A bit like energy turrets cap use and the fact that half of laser ships have a cap cost bonus.

Aliventi wrote:

Do not change this. Keep it at 500%. The 500% sig bloom is designed to make up for the fact that the ship is going 500% faster. This means that the ship doesn't benefit from the speed increase when it comes to tracking according to the turret tracking formula and missile tracking formula.


That's kind of incorrect. The mass increase and general rule that in PvP, people don't just fly in straight line at 100% speed, means that the ship is noticeably easier to hit with a MWD on than off.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#366 - 2015-05-15 19:08:40 UTC
Altrue wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's

Whats your reasoning for this?


Lots of ships have a 50% reduction to MWD bloom. Assault Frigates, Interdictors, Heavy Assault Cruisers, some T3 destroyers... It should ring a few bells that maybe there is a need? I mean, if too many ships have the same role bonus, maybe there is an issue with the module they are bonusing.

A bit like energy turrets cap use and the fact that half of laser ships have a cap cost bonus.

Aliventi wrote:

Do not change this. Keep it at 500%. The 500% sig bloom is designed to make up for the fact that the ship is going 500% faster. This means that the ship doesn't benefit from the speed increase when it comes to tracking according to the turret tracking formula and missile tracking formula.


That's kind of incorrect. The mass increase and general rule that in PvP, people don't just fly in straight line at 100% speed, means that the ship is noticeably easier to hit with a MWD on than off.

Mwds are already the defacto only choice outside of pve, niche oversize prop fits, and sansha ships. Why would you think they need any help?
Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#367 - 2015-05-15 19:24:45 UTC
Hakaari Inkuran wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.

Not asking for T1 to be better than meta, but for there to be meaningful choices when it comes to selecting your modules.

This is an example that i drew up from another thread.

((NUMBERS))]



Honestly this is kinda what I was thinking they would do for all T1 mods vs metas. T1 is less than T2 we get that. We like that. Problem is that T1 is so bad compared to even the most common meta or even their T2's that its completely pointless.

T1 = basic Meta = the basic with specializations. T2 = better but with higher skill and fitting requirements

Who cares? When is the last time you strapped t1 to anything? If ccp wants t1 to be used when its strictly inferior to meta then thats their faulty logic and the onus is on them. Just go about your business using cheap meta or t2



You should care. We should care. This is our game just as much as theirs and we all should strive for good game design and meaningful choices about the tools we have to play with in our sandbox.

T1 is build-able and accessible to anyone of any skill-level and should be able to compete in pvp and other ingame activities. We can't build meta mods and T2 requires both highskills and rare materials that need to be sourced. Haveing T1 mods that can work and be build anywhere would be a massive boon to area's far from the markets of Jita and the well nailed out logistics chains that feed from them. It would let groups be able to fight without a nail in the foot from thier own home untill stockpiles of better gear can be sourced. Because as of right now, we both wouldn't undock in a t1 fit ship. Its so bad that is entirely pointless.
Zappity
Kurved Trading
#368 - 2015-05-15 20:35:42 UTC
Remember that T1 is used in the production of T2 so there is a hefty demand for the meta 0 modules regardless of whether they are used on ships.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#369 - 2015-05-15 20:53:05 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Remember that T1 is used in the production of T2 so there is a hefty demand for the meta 0 modules regardless of whether they are used on ships.


Its not about demand. Its about them being useable for something other than a building block, like them being a module. The only one that can be built by and used by new players, that doesn't require rare minerals to build.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#370 - 2015-05-16 00:01:44 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Remember that T1 is used in the production of T2 so there is a hefty demand for the meta 0 modules regardless of whether they are used on ships.


Its not about demand. Its about them being useable for something other than a building block, like them being a module. The only one that can be built by and used by new players, that doesn't require rare minerals to build.

In CCP's defense they have stated many times that they do intend to make all meta items produceable. I imagine by dropped BPCs replacing current rat loot. Perhaps when they do this they will make the production of those meta modules consume the meta 0 module.
Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#371 - 2015-05-16 08:22:02 UTC
Well at least the Gist escaped the undeserved nerfbatting.

Looks better now, at least before I didn't even need to look closer to find issues, now I have to.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#372 - 2015-05-16 14:23:57 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Well at least the Gist escaped the undeserved nerfbatting.

Looks better now, at least before I didn't even need to look closer to find issues, now I have to.


Wouldn't say totally escaped. The large added activation cost does hurt several existing builds which when gist over core for the cap use differences.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#373 - 2015-05-16 17:08:48 UTC
xxxMN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive

Looking over the stats, this meta version seems a little too powerful in comparison to the tech II version.

I would leave the sig bloom increase 500 % as 450 % is DED module territory and looks out of place on a meta 1 module.

With the stats you linked that version has lower fitting reqs, lower sig bloom, and lower activation cost, while the only drawback being a very small reduction in velocity. In many ways it is far better than the T2 version.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#374 - 2015-05-16 18:46:32 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Well at least the Gist escaped the undeserved nerfbatting.

Looks better now, at least before I didn't even need to look closer to find issues, now I have to.


Wouldn't say totally escaped. The large added activation cost does hurt several existing builds which when gist over core for the cap use differences.


Yes, it killed pretty much all of my fits.

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

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#375 - 2015-05-16 20:35:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's

Whats your reasoning for this?


"Just because"

Probably wants to see Battleships rekt even more.

Moac Tor wrote:
xxxMN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive

Looking over the stats, this meta version seems a little too powerful in comparison to the tech II version.

I would leave the sig bloom increase 500 % as 450 % is DED module territory and looks out of place on a meta 1 module.

With the stats you linked that version has lower fitting reqs, lower sig bloom, and lower activation cost, while the only drawback being a very small reduction in velocity. In many ways it is far better than the T2 version.


What this gentleman said is korrekt.

Seems redundant to introduce a third tier of sub-T2 meta MWDs, and the one proposed is too strong.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#376 - 2015-05-16 21:09:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyranis Marcus
What about the arcjet? It was coldgas arcjet thrusters. (Probably needs some spaces or hyphens I left out.)

Seriously, just drop the new names and use letter/number codes for that part. They sound so lame compared to the old ones, and half of them don't make enough sense to be remembered easily, anyway, so they're not gaining us much.

Do not run. We are your friends.

Conventia Underking
Underking Family
Khimi Harar
#377 - 2015-05-18 02:44:12 UTC
One more vote against the flavor names. I'd much prefer mods without them. (Feel free to put flavor text in the description, though.)

For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity!

The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking

Basil Pupkin
Strategic Incompetence
#378 - 2015-05-18 03:14:09 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Wouldn't say totally escaped. The large added activation cost does hurt several existing builds which when gist over core for the cap use differences.


Surely it's still a nerf, but at least Gist isn't worse at everything over Core now. In previous version Core was stupidly better at everything, now they are somewhat equal, which I can take, provided CCP at least says they had reasons for this.

FT Diomedes wrote:
Yes, it killed pretty much all of my fits.

Goonies complaining about a goonie buff. Sooooo usual.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.

Sturm Gewehr
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#379 - 2015-05-18 03:32:39 UTC
Please keep the speed creep under control, especially frigates/cruisers.
craidie
Porkkanaa Kansalle
#380 - 2015-05-20 01:54:31 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:


  • Gallente based mods (Shadow Serpentis, Federation Navy & Core) in general have higher CPU Usage (tf) and lower Activation Cost (GJ)
  • Minmatar based mods (Domination, Republic Fleet & Gist) in general have higher Powergrid Usage (MW) and lower Signature Radius Bonus (%)



Yet ALL faction/deadspace/officer afterburners have the same activion cost. Why is this?