These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Forum Index

EVE Forums » EVE Technology and Research Center » Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center » [March] Cap Battery Tiericide

Topic is locked indefinitely.

First pagePrevious page34567Next pageLast page

[March] Cap Battery Tiericide First post
Author

Previous Topic Next Topic

Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 16
Thercon Jair Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic Likes received: 16	#81 - 2016-02-14 14:41:31 UTC 1 How exactly is the "Capacitor Warfare Resistance" going to play out? Is it a reflect effect, or does it simply remove xx% from the amount that would have been neutralised without the modifier?

Khan Wrenth

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 782

#82 - 2016-02-14 15:21:49 UTC | Edited by: Khan Wrenth

This may be our only opportunity to make these modules useful, so I'm not giving up on this yet. Fozzie, hear me out.

............................................PG........CPU....additional cap

Small cap battery II...........12..........60.........125
Small cap booster II...........5..........15..........100 (x3)

medium cap battery II.......90.........72..........500
medium cap booster II.....165.......25..........400 (x2)

large cap battery II.............480.......90..........1250
heavy cap booster II.........1925......40...........800 (x5)

Fozzie, do you understand now?

Cap boosters provide you additional cap on demand, so they are already the go-to counter for neuts. Think of them like armor repair modules. Small, medium, large sizes, "repair" your cap at different rates depending on size of module and booster loaded. Cap batteries, by comparison, are like armor hardeners. They don't boost your capacitor, they just make it harder to deplete (either from hostile sources, or running your equipment). Like an armor hardener doesn't increase your actual hitpoints, just makes it harder for a hostile source to chew through them. So while a cap booster is versatile, a cap battery is single-use, and useless even at that because it is out-performed by existing (and perfectly balanced) equipment.

YOU ARE TREATING RESISTANCE MODULES LIKE REPAIR MODULES AND THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON YOUR PROPOSAL, AND BATTERIES AT LARGE, DO NOT WORK.

If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it (whether it be kinetic damage, explosive, etc). That's what cap boosters do. If you run high-cap equipment and get close to capping yourself out, you boost. If someone neuts you, you boost as necessary. Batteries will never be able to match that sort of functionality, yet in some cases your fitting cost for batteries is far higher.

Here is my version of your proposal. Numbers to be tweaked later, these are just to start.

............................................PG........CPU....additional cap
Small cap battery II...........3............10.........150
medium cap battery II......90..........10.........500
large cap battery II............500........10.........1250

The CPU has been flattened out, since the primary benefit of these modules(neut resistance) is the same across all module sizes. That means the benefit of additional cap is related to the powergrid, and has been accordingly sized compared to the best alternative (cap boosters). Keeping in mind these modules must always have much less fitting than boosters since they offer almost nothing to compete against them, this is what your proposal should look like.

With your current proposal, the only module of any consequence is the small tech-2, since that provides the resistance benefit people are looking for. That may be the only module that sees ANY use. Why use medium or large for pittance additional cap, when you get the same resistance from a small or micro?

If you want to do this correctly, you're going to have to dispense with the small/medium/large altogether. Convert batteries to "insulated capacitor nodes" that only give neut resistance and not additional cap (PWG and CPU like shield or armor hardeners), and have your normal meta versions, and be done with it. If you won't do that, you're going to have to start with my proposal and work from there to have any success with these modules, or it's a failure right out of the gate.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.

CCP Fozzie

C C P

C C P Alliance

Likes received: 14,980

#83 - 2016-02-14 16:30:55 UTC

Thanks for the feedback so far!
We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.

We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

elitatwo

Zansha Expansion

Likes received: 1,739

#84 - 2016-02-14 17:42:15 UTC

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Thank you, now they look much more accessable!

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Khan Wrenth

Viziam

Amarr Empire

Likes received: 782

#85 - 2016-02-14 18:05:09 UTC

I appreciate the second run on the stats.

However...

The small cap battery still requires more and provides less than a small cap booster. And for the fitting resources needed for the medium and large, you're better off fitting other mods still (again, especially cap boosters). If you think you're going to be neuted, a cap booster is necessary and these modules do not replace those. And since boosters already take up a lot of resources and provide a lot of benefit, there is no remaining need for these. There just isn't any justification for fitting them, even with these reduced costs. For the PWG and CPU of a medium, I'd be better off using that slot and/or fitting resources to put in extenders, tracking computers, almost anything else.

Heck, even with the stats I offered a few posts above, I probably still wouldn't use them, because the available options are better in almost all conceivable scenarios.

The only scenario I can see these modules working out better than a cap battery is where you are in an extraordinarily narrow window where you're being neuted, so the resistance is there to help. But...you're far enough away that the hostile is in deep falloff for his neuts and he's still trying anyway. And your resistance to the neut has to leave you with more cap than fitting a cap recharger would have. Any heavier neuting and the resistance won't help and you'd be better served by boosters, any less neuting and the cap recharger would have been a better choice. Even stacking multiple small batteries is a waste of midslots and fitting resources compared to the sorts of sacrifices you'd make by not having something else more useful in those mids.

I must reiterate my previous comment. Divorce the resist part of the mods from the capacitor extender part. Give us midslot resist mods (Insulated capacitor nodes) that are identical in fitting to cap rechargers and up the resistance to like 30% for tech II. Then give us slowslot versions (insulated capacitor wiring) that aren't as good or have drawbacks, that range from 15-20% so we have options in our fitting.

You've married shield extenders to EM ward fields, and it's just not going to work.

BUT

I saw people post positively about these modules earlier in the thread. Please people, share with me your stories, things that happened to you, where THESE modules would have been better for you than any other option. I want to know what you've encountered that tells you these are the best fit. I want to know which scenarios have unfolded where these were the preferred choice, because I don't see it.

Make me a believer. I'm here, and I'm all ears.

Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.

ChromeStriker

Sebiestor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 1,052

#86 - 2016-02-14 18:13:36 UTC

Hey Fozzie...

I still have an issue, where i would have fit a large before, i now cant fit one.... and a medium is a downgrade on the old large (of course the neut resist is still a great fix)....

What i mean is that to make batteries useful (before) we had to use a size larger... for example on BC's now, a medium is too small... and a large is too hard to fit....

No Worries

MRxX7XxMONKEY

Sleepless Enterprises

Likes received: 13

#87 - 2016-02-14 19:04:56 UTC | Edited by: MRxX7XxMONKEY

CCP Fozzie wrote:

at this point these things are costing CPU wise LESS than what they cost now for larges (75 for t2 right now, 60 after), while the PG cost is nearly 200% of original. I'd say that maybe the CPU reduction was a tad too much, but the PG, man, dropping it down by 50 or 60 for the larges would probably do well. You cant really fit them on BCs or t3s anymore (except for spending a lot on the faction versions, which, I guess, wont be as much of a problem if you make their LP price accessible :) but, no idea on that), and the mediums are so much significantly worse than current larges that theyre not really usable on those ships

edit: alternatively, you could make the mediums give more cap, the difference in cap bonus between the larges and mediums is pretty crazy

Trajan Unknown

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 146

#88 - 2016-02-14 20:14:35 UTC

I think the only decision a player should make is, do I want sustainability = cap battery or do I want a quick burst = cap booster.
Making the fitting costs so different and giving me as a player such a handicap for using a cap battery feels super bad. But maybe I am overlooking something here. But as it stands now I don´t even think of fitting a cap battery on smaller ships simply because I can´t without crippling my fit hard.

Kasia en Tilavine

School of Applied Knowledge

Caldari State

Likes received: 91

#89 - 2016-02-14 20:26:59 UTC

Khan Wrenth wrote:

If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it.

Comparing capacitor tanking with classical damage tanking is actually a great point of view. Capacitor is extremely simplistic (having only 1 damage type), but still functions almost identically to shield tanking. You have a buffer of GJ, with a recharge curve along the whole of the buffer. As it stands (given that 99.999% of the player base considers them beyond useless), there are no resist mods or buffer mods for capacitor. So the template needs to be Shield buffer and repair modules. Since most pilots will agree that they are fairly balanced among themselves.

Large ASB...........100Cpu ... 150 PG.... boosts a total of 3510 hp across 32 seconds with a 60 second reload.
(92 seconds to get back to square 1)

Large SE ............45Cpu ... 120 PG... adds a base of 2600 hp which upgrades hp/s passive recharge variably.
(crusiers shoulder these 2 modules quite often and have a base shield of about what these modules provide 2500-3500)

Invuln ................. 44 Cpu ... 1 PG ...... reduces incoming damage by 30%.

Cap boosters should be treated like a shield booster. It is functionally identical in operation and intent. It pulses a large amount of hp/gj into the pool to offset damage/neut and to aid natural recharge shield/cap with a single mid slot item. Since we are looking at Large ASB and SE which are often found on cruisers. lets look at the medium CB.

Medium CB .............25Cpu ... 165 PG... boosts a total of 1200 gj across 36 seconds with 10 second reload. (navy 400)
(cruisers typically have 1500-1800 capacitor in total)

With only a 10 second reload, these can be considered to have an almost permanent upkeep. unlike ASBs. And now you want to add a buffer resist combo module. After all, cap warfare is far simpler and uses far less slots. we don't need a whole lot of complexity and granularity in this regard. space for midslots is already hard enough to come by. 1 module would be more than sufficient. What would it have to look like to be balanced? Lots of people fit LSE and lots of people fit ASB. It all depends on how you're flying and what kind of ship you're in. But EVERYBODY fits cap boosters if there is even a vague chance they will be under neut pressure. or even not. A lot of people set aside a slot for that ubiquitously.

Medium Battery II .................... 50 Cpu ... 150 PG ... adds a base of 1000 gj and provides 25% resist to capacitor warfare.

BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.

Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist
Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist
Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist

None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.

Zetakya

State War Academy

Caldari State

Likes received: 24

#90 - 2016-02-14 20:41:16 UTC

A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;

Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?

In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value?

419
Circumstantial Evidence Likes received: 419	#91 - 2016-02-14 20:49:17 UTC High fitting cost parts compete with every other high fitting cost part. I don't know if I'm going to face a cap warfare situation in any particular engagement, but getting shot at is near certainty. So, tanking parts and HP usually take fitting priority.

Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 6
Helsinki Atruin Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic Likes received: 6	#92 - 2016-02-14 20:51:11 UTC so you know how when you fit an oversized afterburner you get more speed than the percentage the module lists, if you could give some kind of benefit like that for energy warfare resistance, it would probably help. Basically, at the cost tons of fitting, you get tons of energy warfare resistance.

Harvey James

The Sengoku Legacy

Likes received: 1,267

#93 - 2016-02-14 20:59:23 UTC

its good that you listened fozzie, thread feedback often is ignored or you get the dodgy overbuffing/ keeping officer webs..
BUT... these mods still demand too much fitting and are out classed by cap boosters all the way even with the rather small e-war resist (considering fitting 1 is hard enough) .. i think the only way these are desirable is as a alternative too a cap relay, think of it as a passive cap booster .. which is what low slots are usually passive modules rather than the active midslots..

- lowslots
- buff cap pool or maybe its fine as a lowslot
- buff e-war resists
- reduce cpu and pg requirements substantially

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

Alexis Nightwish

Likes received: 443

#94 - 2016-02-14 21:39:54 UTC | Edited by: Alexis Nightwish

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Looking over the new numbers here's the feedback:

The CPU and PG for the smalls is still too high, and the cap bonus too low. I would never equip one because a cap booster does more for less, and the resist bonus of the battery wouldn't stop a cruiser or larger from blapping my cap anyway which is the primary reason to equip one on a frig.

The fitting for the mediums look about right, but I would lower the cap bonus by about 10% of what you have listed.

For the larges the CPU is about right, but they need to cost a LOT more PG. I know you guys just ******* love cruisers, but cruisers (which typically have under 500 base capacitor) should not be able to equip a mod that gives them another 1100!

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

FT Cold

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 109

#95 - 2016-02-14 21:54:21 UTC | Edited by: FT Cold

CCP Fozzie wrote:

A great start. Still, these are pretty niche. For a battleship sized module fit to a battleship with average an capacitor, as an example, were still talking about reducing a single heavy neut's neuting capacity by about 5gj a sec and giving the hull an extra cap booster and a half's worth of cap, along with a couple of gj a sec in regen. In comparison to a t2 cap booster, the gained delta vs a single unbonused heavy neut is about 7gj a sec vs 33.5 pre-heat, 46 with heat for the booster in terms of expected cap drain vs applied cap drain, disregarding the hull's base regen. Also, two gj a sec in a 7 a sec figure are for a ship at peak regen, we could realistically round this number down. For a hypothetical fit with four of these modules the gained delta looks better at about 21 gj a sec vs a single heavy neut, vs two neuts the efficiency ratio drops significantly because the cap regen can only be counted once, around 33gj a sec vs 50gj a sec in unmitigated cap drain. The ratio continues to decrease as the number of heavy neuts goes up.

Yeah, you might last a couple more neut cycles with one of these fitted, and I know people are going to say that cap charges will deplete, but 20 cap charges with a t2 cap booster will last almost five minutes without heat. I know fights may last much longer, and these modules could immensely benefit from cap chaining logi, but they're competing for extremely valuable mid slots, and I'd like to see more of a fitting choice vs. cap boosters.

Vs extreme neuting power, such as against a bhaal without talismans, fit with 7 heavy neuts, we're talking about a cap drain of 280gj a sec and an alpha of about 6700gj. For a geddon, its about 175gj a sec with an alpha of 4200. A bhaal will still be able to neut another battleship dry in two cycles even with four cap batteries fit and the target ship will experience a net cap drain of almost 130gj a sec excluding the ship's natural regen.

Maybe you can allay my fears, but I still think that for a module that's designed to somewhat counter cap warfare, this is going to be too weak to do the job. Not trying to appear caustic here, I just have a hard time believing these are going to matter much for capacitor battles fed by guardians or triage, or for small gang situations where a player feels they might want a special unpredictable edge.

Circumstantial Evidence

Likes received: 419

#96 - 2016-02-14 22:21:15 UTC

Alexis Nightwish wrote:

... For the larges the CPU is about right, but they need to cost a LOT more PG. I know you guys just ******* love cruisers, but cruisers (which typically have under 500 base capacitor) should not be able to equip a mod that gives them another 1100!

I don't see a problem: it's the same sort of tradeoff as fitting a battleship-sized AB/MWD on a cruiser. It would consume a huge amount of fitting capacity, demanding sacrifices elsewhere.

Nevyn Auscent

Broke Sauce

Likes received: 4,077

#97 - 2016-02-14 22:38:29 UTC

Kasia en Tilavine wrote:

BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.

Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist
Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist
Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist

None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.

These are some very good comparative numbers, Fozzie please look at and acknowledge them.
With the lower reload on cap boosters currently I'd compensate by seriously dropping the Battery fittings so they can actually be included in a normal fit instead of a cap booster. And then people 'might' use them for logistics reasons.

FT Cold

Federal Navy Academy

Gallente Federation

Likes received: 109

#98 - 2016-02-14 22:40:29 UTC

Circumstantial Evidence wrote:

Alexis Nightwish wrote:

I don't see a problem: it's the same sort of tradeoff as fitting a battleship-sized AB/MWD on a cruiser. It would consume a huge amount of fitting capacity, demanding sacrifices elsewhere.

In their current development iteration I can see the large size used on a few hac fits; the deimos, ishtar, sac, maybe in a few edge cases the eagle. For other cruisers, the base regen of their cap is too low for them to be competitive with a cap booster, even under neut pressure.

Kalen Pavle

Brutor Tribe

Minmatar Republic

Likes received: 73

#99 - 2016-02-14 22:45:52 UTC

How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?

We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.

A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate.

Sabriz Adoudel

Move along there is nothing here

Likes received: 6,056

#100 - 2016-02-14 22:58:54 UTC

Khan Wrenth wrote:

While I think your conclusion is correct (that injectors are a superior module overall for 95% of applications), it is worth pointing out that with the way cap maths runs, these batteries increase your cap regen per second as well as your total pool of capacitor.

This may make them superior to injectors in fights you expect to be protracted and may give these modules a home on Marauders.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

First pagePrevious page34567Next pageLast page