These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War Dec, Kill Reports and New Modules discussion

First post First post
Author
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#281 - 2012-05-05 08:12:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
@SoniClover
Okay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up P
Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer.

Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster.
I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility.

Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU Blink


I didn't edit the duration, I was thinking of upping the duration of the small version to 3, or even make all them 4 like the large and x-l are now, but decided to wait on that.

It's possible to make it one per ship, but cap boosters actually take quite a room in your cargo hold, so I think that's going to be the limiting factor to how easily you can sustain multiple modules.


@SoniClover

With the way they currently handle cap charges, that is highly unlikely.
Running the best possible size charge (currently 5 or 6 navy per boost cycle), means you have have a cargo hold with TONS of cap charges. Granted, it takes a fair bit of time to go through all that cap since reloading takes a fair bit of time, but I think it's a fair trade.

Allowing multiple ancillary boosters to be fit is cheaper (in grid) than running a typical injector AND booster, and means you could potentially set up your tank (especially if linked) to last long enough to endure the 60 second reload time. On very popular ships like the 100mn Tengu, this would be quite difficult to break.

You've said you're doubling their stats, and that will probably be enough to make these worth using.
Basically, the achilles heel of these modules is their long reload time, which is good.

Once someone needs to reload, they are incredibly vulnerable.
Allowing multiple to be fit circumvents this shortcoming, and is easily afforded on ships that currently use injector+booster setups.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

zariae
Doomheim
#282 - 2012-05-05 09:35:52 UTC
Are the new modules going to be seeded for all markets? if not where are they currently?
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#283 - 2012-05-05 14:40:36 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible....

There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing.


Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking


If that's the intention then they're totally useless.

You are so tight on Midslot for shield slots, you can't afford to take a passive fit and then stick on a "non-passive" module on passive tank.

This module benefits passive tanking in absolutely no way possible, takes away from the ability to put scrams and webs - and then does a pathetic amount of "repair" for a passive tank.

I think your assertion is incorrect. This module is intended as an alternate style of active tanking that frees you from requiring to use a cap booster so you can still run more mid slots in EWAR.

A scorpion for example could benefit this because it won't take massive DPS at 120km range but with 1 free midslot it can now have a shield booster that allows it to stay on the field longer and not interrupt its ability to put out ECM. This still makes a 60 second reload unbearably long for a active boosting module where you're basically FORCING the pilot to use other midslots to support it when you can get along better with a simple shield booster and cap booster combo.

If you want to say this has alternate purposes, make it better at something other than the current standard.



Where I am.

LaserzPewPew
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#284 - 2012-05-05 14:59:01 UTC
Since we can't put ROF on the Extrinsic Amp, why don't we compensate it to ~15% and add a 10% drone speed multiplier?

This would make drone dps more reliable, as they would take less time getting to the target, thus increasing their damage. This would also keep sentry dps in relative line. Drone nav already grants ~30% speed bonus, yes, but for those of us that have no available midslots, faster drones are always a bonus.
Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2012-05-05 15:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
Bloodpetal wrote:
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible....

There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing.


Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking


If that's the intention then they're totally useless.

You are so tight on Midslot for shield slots, you can't afford to take a passive fit and then stick on a "non-passive" module on passive tank.

This module benefits passive tanking in absolutely no way possible, takes away from the ability to put scrams and webs - and then does a pathetic amount of "repair" for a passive tank.

I think your assertion is incorrect. This module is intended as an alternate style of active tanking that frees you from requiring to use a cap booster so you can still run more mid slots in EWAR.

A scorpion for example could benefit this because it won't take massive DPS at 120km range but with 1 free midslot it can now have a shield booster that allows it to stay on the field longer and not interrupt its ability to put out ECM. This still makes a 60 second reload unbearably long for a active boosting module where you're basically FORCING the pilot to use other midslots to support it when you can get along better with a simple shield booster and cap booster combo.

If you want to say this has alternate purposes, make it better at something other than the current standard.






After SoniClover updates the modules to what he has described, a single LASB will boost 2 LSEs worth of EHP before needing to reload.

Assuming you aren't in a situation to get volleyed, that puts the LASB in a preferable position over a second LSE to go in the mids of your Hurricane/Vaga/etc. And with bonuses, it will be even better to have 1x LSE, 1x LASB rather than 2x LSE, even with all CDFEs in your rig slots.

A 2x LASB fit, or a 1x LASB/1x Invuln or SBA fit isn't viable because you can get volleyed.

These are something of a shield buffer refresher, and assuming you already have one LSE fit, are more beneficial than a second LSE in low alpha situations.
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#286 - 2012-05-06 00:27:47 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible....

There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing.


Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking


If that's the intention then they're totally useless.


You're missing the point.
Some ships that *could* active tank well, but are limited by fitting/cap, get a huge boost.
These are ships that in most circumstance should always have an LSE fit to up their base hp.

Ships like the Ferox & Raven hulls are a great example, as it doesnt have the slots/grid to do everything.
With the addition of these new mods, TONS of grid is spared by no longer needing a cap booster.

At the very least, with the boosted stats these will become viable alternatives for low alpha engagements Smile

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#287 - 2012-05-06 12:21:55 UTC
...and all I was hoping new killmails like "dear sir/mam, you have been podded and now your corpse is floating in cold space. Unfortunately our cloning facility is broken and you can not be revived. Welcome to Eve - please roll new character".

Anyways keep doing what you're doing - the amount of positive 2 way communication in this thread indicates that there will be some awesome stuff coming in winferno.

...and just to be clear - u can ignore my 1st sentence as being a troll.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#288 - 2012-05-06 22:14:42 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
I think the Drone WU needs to move to high slot to compete with guns and other drone modules.



I will put a second on this. I commonly fit so there are empty high slots while lows (tank) and mids (cap/ewar) are filled. It would be easy to give up a turrent as a damage contributor in exchange for the drones applying the damage instead.
Azura Solus
Rules of Acquisition
#289 - 2012-05-06 23:53:12 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
Nova Fox wrote:
I think the Drone WU needs to move to high slot to compete with guns and other drone modules.



I will put a second on this. I commonly fit so there are empty high slots while lows (tank) and mids (cap/ewar) are filled. It would be easy to give up a turret as a damage contributor in exchange for the drones applying the damage instead.



Agree with all the above Drone boats dont depend on turrets to do there damage. Any drone boat pilot i know would happily give up there turrets for the drone damage mods to be high slot. And most drone boats Armor tanked Ie (low slots are already taken). I can understand you want to make them in line with gyros and heat sinks and such but it just isn't viable.

As example of this A domi set up for afk missions will have there lows filled with armor hardeners 2 repairers and a cap power relay while the mids are all cap rechargers. Most people dont even fit turrets to a afk ship like that and instead choose drone link augs a laser ( any will do to pull agro) and reps to repair your drones. And for the PVP side of things A neut Arbitrator is about the same lows for tank Mids for scrams and utility mods and your highs are neuts.

***Both Drone boats have fits where these new mods would only be beneficial in a high slot position.****

Now im sure there are other examples of ships in the same situation, and people who fit there ships differently but i do believe that the new drone damage mod should be a high slot And should be buffed more then currently offered (especially since Nothing can be done about the ROF)
Sutha Moliko
Giza'Msafara
#290 - 2012-05-07 05:47:35 UTC
Azura Solus wrote:

As example of this A domi set up for afk missions will have there lows filled with armor hardeners 2 repairers and a cap power relay while the mids are all cap rechargers. Most people dont even fit turrets to a afk ship like that and instead choose drone link augs a laser ( any will do to pull agro) and reps to repair your drones. And for the PVP side of things A neut Arbitrator is about the same lows for tank Mids for scrams and utility mods and your highs are neuts.

***Both Drone boats have fits where these new mods would only be beneficial in a high slot position.****

Now im sure there are other examples of ships in the same situation, and people who fit there ships differently but i do believe that the new drone damage mod should be a high slot And should be buffed more then currently offered (especially since Nothing can be done about the ROF)

I strongly disagree with the high slot (btw CCP will not change their mind about it)
If it is a high utiliy slot, you will just benefit from it. Worse all ships could benefit from it. As Gallente and Amarr drone boat pilot, I'll accept to make a choice like with any other ships, because Drones are my main weapons on those ships.

Recon Amarr pilots will never sacrifice their utility for a damage modifier. However, I will gladly add an Extrinsic on a low slot on them.

Now, take a Sentry Dominix with 1 LAR, 4 hardeners, 1 DC, 1 Mag stab, 350mm railgun, replace the mag stab with an Extrinsic. Your DPS increase a little bit, not much I agree because the actual bonus is too low. Of course you do not AFK mission on a Sentry Dominix.
This is an exemple to explain why I will like to see an increase of the damage bonus and a decrease in CPU required in order to be more attractive and really on par with the others damage modifier.
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#291 - 2012-05-07 13:13:11 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
FYI im not a fan of the new war dec system, but i wasnt exactly a fan of the old system either.

i understand the logic of more targets = more isk, and although i dont particularly like it, i understand its logical place in the war dec system. I just feel theres more to it than just numbers of targets....

Idea One idea that gained some traction and CCP Guards approval is to also base war dec costs on the standings of the targeted corp/alliance towards the 4 main factions and concord.

Why, you may ask?

Well the war dec system is essentially a way of bribing security services in high sec to 'look the other way' when it comes to illegally attacking someone in high sec. Standings are essentially a metric to measure how much a friend you are to NPC's. So to bribe someone (NPC's) to look the other way when you're attacking/killing a friend of theirs should cost a lot more!

So yes, when you look at it, numbers should make a difference, BUT standings should make a difference too!


One problem in this is that alliances dont have standings from NPC's. So I'd suggest Alliances incorporate NPC standings increases in the same way corps do today - A slow and gradual increase based on the average of it pilots.

What do you guys think
Question
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#292 - 2012-05-07 14:34:16 UTC
newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play!

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Rivqua
Omega Wing
#293 - 2012-05-07 14:48:06 UTC
We didn't get the updated shield boosters? Same stats as last week.
Noriko Mai
#294 - 2012-05-07 14:59:24 UTC
Declare war on yourself: linkBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein

gfldex
#295 - 2012-05-07 16:49:44 UTC
For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number:

Quote:
The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Callic Veratar
#296 - 2012-05-07 16:51:02 UTC
gfldex wrote:
For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number:

Quote:
The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK.


Context man! Context!
Severian Carnifex
#297 - 2012-05-07 17:05:48 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
gfldex wrote:
For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number:

Quote:
The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK.


Context man! Context!



Against goons.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#298 - 2012-05-07 17:09:40 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
gfldex wrote:
For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number:

Quote:
The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK.


Context man! Context!



Against goons.



Can't get on sisi (thanks for more awesome Mac support CCP) but for comparison, how much to Dec a 20 man corp?
Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#299 - 2012-05-07 17:17:37 UTC
Ooh, now that's nice
Ines Fy
#300 - 2012-05-07 17:19:51 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play!


can you give us some hints on how the formula is calculated?