These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2015-05-26 07:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Harvey James wrote:
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%]

These are exact same stats. I think these modules should be merged because they are actually the same item, just under two flavor names.


or make the fed navy one agility based like their plates are.



Yeah, but you know, that would mean that we would actually have module differentiation that made sense instead of just this system of cleaning up a load of modules from the data base and leaving us with the same old choices we already have now.

Choice comes down to this:

1st - T2 Best Bonus (fitting permitted)
2nd - Compact (as it has the best bonus of the meta modules)
3rd - rearrange your fit so that either 1st choice or 2nd choice module can be squeezed in as T1 is awful and "Compact" is superior to everything else.

CCP. This module metacide you're doing is failing because you fail to understand how to do it. You're still making it one of two choices when choosing a module. I don't understand why you can't understand how to do this simple task.

A method I would employ is to balance each module around a "zero point".
Example:
Fitting, activation (and drawbacks) minus the bonus = zero.
Every 1% speed bonus the module gives is equal to -1 point.
Every unit of fitting (CPU/PG) is equal to 3 points.
Every unit of activation cost is equal to 2 points.

T2 gets a +8 to the zero point

Faction gets +12 to the zero point
etc etc
Use this formula to achieve balance of all the modules.
For example

1 MN Afterburner I
Speed boost (B)= 125%
Activation (A) = 25
PG (P)= 10
CPU (C)=15
So the formula would look like this:
((A*2) + (P*3) + (C*3)) - B = 0 (zero)
50 + 30 + 45 - 125 = 0

1MN Compact Afterburner
Speed Bonus = 120%
Activation = 27
PG = 9
CPU = 13

1MN Afterburner II
Speed Bonus = 135%
Activation = 23
PG = 12
CPU = 15

T2 formula applies
(((A*2) + (P*3) + (C*3)) - B) + 8 = 0
((46 + 36 + 45) - 135) + 8 = 0

As you can see, the formula has required me to apply more activation and less speed bonus in order to get lower fitting requirements. The T1 version isn't obsolete by the meta version and the meta version is still a viable option (can even pump the activation up higher to get a speed boost similar to T1)
The T2 version gets it's + 8 bonus which allows for a better speed bonus but also at the cost of fitting and activation.

Apply this style of balancing to all modules with the T1 version being the base level and ou end up with a balanced system of modules giving unique roles.
brutus elementus
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#402 - 2015-05-26 13:44:02 UTC
Please no
Marek Melkan
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#403 - 2015-05-26 21:24:13 UTC
I like it.

And I like the fancy names.

A bit of a change in prop will be fun. It's going to give rise to new fits.
I don't see the T2 5nm MWD be any more useful that its predecessor though... :)
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#404 - 2015-05-27 03:03:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Midnight Hope
- 5,50,500: Good change +1

- Y-S8, Cold-Gas, Monopropelant: I can't thank you enough +1
(you still couldn't bring it all the way to Cold-Gas Arcjet Thruster and Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon, but there's still hope)

- Meta modules:
Compact: Lower fitting requirements -1
Enduring: Lower capacitor usage -1
Restrained: Lower drawbacks -1

OMG, you guys have been watching too much Downtown Abbey? "Enduring" is not used since the 18th century!! Why not "long suffering" ??

Please try to get something with a bit more scifi flavor. I'm sure you can find an engineer or three for ideas:

Compact -> Micro/Nano (same functionality, less use of fittings)
Enduring -> Low-intake/Efficient/Low-input (same fittings, less resource usage for activation)
Restrained -> Enhanced/Optimized/Advanced (if I understood correctly, the item is not actually "restrained", the item is "enhanced" or optimized in such a way thatits drawbacks are reduced or restrained)
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#405 - 2015-05-27 03:53:19 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
Edit: is it intentional, that the compact MWDs provide aditional speedboost compared to the other meta 1 version (5%)?

Hrm, I'm not seeing that? All the Meta 1 MWDs should provide the same speed boost (505%). Can you quote the specific section?



Lloyd Roses wrote:
I highly do not appreciate the speed creep. Rather keep the current max speed bonus and then have metas with less speed bonus.

There is a chance to hit the break a little, pleasepleaseplease.

Galphii wrote:
I think the current top speeds are fine, perhaps reduce the low end instead of increasing the top end.
Flavour names are consistent with other tiericided modules I guess, though I don't think they were necessary either. If you want to keep things simple, adding nonsense text to a module name isn't going to help. Otherwise, things looking good in those numbers.

We are going to be watching how the small speed buff affects TQ. We've done a bunch of internal testing and don't expect it to have a large impact on the meta. That said, give us your feedback! There are 4 weeks till release.



OK, here's my take on this.

Orthrus with Thukker LSE's, Restrained MWD, faction point, HG Haloes and full Gaymore links = what sig, how fast, what point range, and so on.

Or a 50MN AB Orthrus with same Thukker LSE's = what sig, speed, oint range, blah blah?

Consider the impact of reducing MWD sig penalties PLUS simultaneously reducing shield extender sig penalties.

The game is already either
a) nanofag meta - stay at range, long range weapons, high speed + links
b) sig tanking gorilla on micro triciycle - low sig, AB or even now T3D defensive mode MWD sig tank kiting / 10MN sig tank kiting
c) bring uber logistics wing to compensate for lacking one or both of the above

So, yeah, please DO have a look at this.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Aliastra Cruentatus
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#406 - 2015-05-29 16:31:34 UTC
omg guys you really need to make up your mind.
while back you removed names and made all same name to make it easier. now you returning them.
Put more game play stuff in game.
Stop ganging in hi sec. FIX GAME!!!
updated graphics and playing with mods dont improve game!"!
Mokusui
Lazy Brothers Inc
#407 - 2015-05-29 17:22:12 UTC
It is my opinion that you are doing a great thing by adding more character to the module names; you've done good work here. Thank you.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#408 - 2015-05-29 18:33:30 UTC
Aliastra Cruentatus wrote:
omg guys you really need to make up your mind.
while back you removed names and made all same name to make it easier. now you returning them.
Put more game play stuff in game.
Stop ganging in hi sec. FIX GAME!!!
updated graphics and playing with mods dont improve game!"!


Stopping ganking means killing the spirit of eve. I don't gank, am frequently the target of gank attempts and still say this.
Better graphics keep the art department busy, and make the trailers better, so we can get more people in game.
The modules getting more sensible (not perfect, but I can see uses for almost every meta module thus far proposed, even if most of the time, it's one meta far above the rest for general utility) is a massive fix to the game play, and probably has the most far-ranging scope of any sort of change, as the same modules are used regardless of space type, particular ship and so on.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Rufelza
Widowmakers
#409 - 2015-05-30 07:31:30 UTC
I feel that this is a somewhat needless pass with other moduals needing to be tidied up first, like what is being done with the shield extenders and armour plates. I feel that with these changes you may have lost sight of the original intention.

My feeling is that the AB's seem to have all been very much leveled in one respect and balance from that perspective, where are the lower activation cost moduals gone? Only one remains.
Blacktide Bakersmith
Caliburn Ghast
#410 - 2015-06-02 01:30:13 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:


[b]Goals of Module Tiericide
  • Reduce unnecessary complexity
  • Provide meaningful options within the module set


  • "Limited 1MN Afterburner I" become "1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner"
  • "Experimental 1MN Afterburner I" become "1MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner"
  • "Experimental 10MN Afterburner I" become "10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner"
  • "Experimental 100MN Afterburner I" become "100MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner"
  • "Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I" become "5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive"
  • "Upgraded 1MN Microwarpdrive I" become "5MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive"
  • "Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I" become "50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive"
  • "Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I" become "500MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive"




So the goal of these changes are to reduce unnecessary complexity and provide meaningful options within the module set. Pardon me for being confused about this, but which part of the changes specifically reduce the complexity? Speaking for myself here, I'm looking at these changes and thinking, wow, talk about unnecessarily adding to the complexity... The 1, 10, 100 made perfect sense, this, not so much.

So congratulations on the total and complete failure of meeting your proposed goals.

Any ETA on when we can expect a revist of these systems, to ya know, remove or reduce the uneccesary complexity you are adding in?
Alowishus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#411 - 2015-06-02 04:08:59 UTC
All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this:

Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity

I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds.
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#412 - 2015-06-02 08:01:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
Alowishus wrote:
All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this:

Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity

I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds.


I Like it. Stupid, but in a fun way and...I like it.

Edit: Strike my last. It's not stupid, but I still like it.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Shai 'Hulud
#413 - 2015-06-02 09:12:32 UTC
speed creep bad

The most useful slaves are those that believe themselves to be free
Aeon Veritas
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2015-06-02 09:23:23 UTC
Hi there,

a thing that i already mentioned here is that I think the Meta levels should be applied to the different modules.
Like "Compact" = Meta 1, "Restrained" = Meta 2 and so on...
this would make it easier to filter the inventar for the different mods.
Now they are all Meta 1 and you have to look for the names
And if i understand it correctly you don't plan to add more mods between Tech 1 and Tech 2. So why not use the Meta levels that are already there?

Further I want to complain that you said:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
UPDATED 2015-05-12

Changes
  • ...
  • 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 (%)
But you only applied this to the MWD.
Why didn't we keep it for the AB like it was before? lower activation cost for gallente based and higher speed for minmatar based.
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Afterburner Raw Stats (Updated 2015-05-12)
  • ...
  • Core X-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 16 (+3); Powergrid 625; CPU 65 (-1); Activation 290 (+49); Velocity Bonus 165 (+6)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
  • Gist X-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 16 (+3); Powergrid 813 (+63); CPU 50; Activation 290 (-30); Velocity Bonus 165 (+3)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
Now the only difference for the AB are the pricetag and the fitting restrictions.
Please fix this...

Fly save o7
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
#415 - 2015-06-02 09:37:33 UTC
Remember the nano nerf !

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/speed-rebalanced/

Does Destiny not have the problems with ludicrous speed anymore?
Apo Lamperouge
#416 - 2015-06-02 11:46:54 UTC
A: We have looked at this very closely, and we’re comfortable with the very small speed increase MWD fitted ships will get. In most cases its less than 4%. A max faction speed fit overheating Garmur goes from 13085 m/s before the changes, to 13140 m/s after.


WHuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?

If that's not ugly overpowered I don't know what is.


"Does Destiny not have the problems with ludicrous speed anymore?"

If there is Ludicrous Speed in the game, there it is.

Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#417 - 2015-06-02 12:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Alowishus wrote:
All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this:

Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity

I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds.


The other way around, Afterburners should be providing that kind of bonus for ~some reason~, and in order to proliferate their use in PvP.

Reason being that MWDs soak up too much space power, while ABs leave enough for spaceship to worp faster. Blink

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

[Cruisers Online]
Alowishus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#418 - 2015-06-02 12:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Alowishus
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Alowishus wrote:
All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this:

Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity
Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity

I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds.


The other way around, Afterburners should be providing that kind of bonus for ~some reason~, and in order to proliferate their use in PvP.

Reason being that MWDs soak up too much space power, while ABs leave enough for spaceship to worp faster. Blink


I actually agree with you but my reasoning was that a micro warp drive might help you warp faster. Your logic is sound enough, however.

I was being absurd though. CCP has stated that they prefer that 99% of the time you fly a BS you should be aligning/in warp and things are presently working as intended.

Here's another thought I had.

5mn MWD = -2 rig slots (less slots means less polycarbs = reduced speed)
50mn MWD = -0 rig slots
500mn MWD = +1 rig slots

Then instead of giving Hyperspace Velocity Rigs a penalty for stacking, do the opposite. Make two work really well in tandem, then penalize a third a little bit. Adjust for size.

I know. Crazy stuff. Just thinking out loud about reducing velocity of smaller ships and increasing warp velocity of larger ships with one stone.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#419 - 2015-06-02 13:58:32 UTC
Well i like it in general, even though that makes everything way way more complex and difficult as before.
Electra Magnetic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2015-06-02 14:13:01 UTC
the name change is garbage and does nothing but confuse the entire community. The speed change to MWD's isnt needed. AB's still need a speed increase. All of these modules should be tied to a ship class so that the oversize fits can stop being abused and exploited.

Not really seeing anything beneficial from these changes, just wasted development time.