These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Ancillary MicroWarpdrive

Author
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#21 - 2013-08-01 09:12:16 UTC
Lidia Caderu wrote:
Because just a Microwarpdrive is too mainstreem

MWD simply breaks Active tanking so ancillary MWD is what we need, I think :))))

It have not to give negative bonus to cap but battary injection might use some cap (or might not)


bad idea that would make MWD too strong period the high cap use is the trade off for the high speed bonus

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
#22 - 2013-08-01 09:27:51 UTC
ANCILLARY EVERYTHING
Zetak
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-08-01 09:42:59 UTC
Ellendras Silver wrote:
Zetak wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
The ancillary concept was a mistake with the ASB and any module that works like it would be a mistake also.


It was not a mistake. Before ancillary shield boosters, you had to buy the 400-500 mil shield booster for missioning, or use a very specialized fit. In pvp with the exception of some cases, shield tanking was inferior to armor tanking, still is in a lot of cases, but not as much. If you say other, you are wrong.


i disagree strongly here. why are faction/dead space/officer armor reps hardly sold? because they suck big donkey balls and why are faction/dead space/officer shield mods expensive and sold a lot? because they rule new eden

it isnt said that armor tanking is all bad it has it has strong points for sure but so does shield, and can be very effective it just depends on the situation.

never the less they need to boost faction/dead space/officer armor mods because they are useless at this point and ASB and AAR i think shield is also more populair
Quote:

With ancillary shield booster I use a med booster II, it cost me 2 mil isk, and i can tank everything without the fear of dying, and I remain cap stable. An ancillary MWD is one of the better ideas, because when slots are few, and your cap is bad, an ancillary can help very much.

Caldari ships for example does not have the luxury of having a good cap, and usually med slots are taken by the tank or tackle/ewar modules. An ancillary module limited as they are (8 cycle before reload), it gives extra modules to fit, meaning you don't have to fit cap booster if you use it with ASB, and there is more room for more useful ewar modules.

I bet that those who oppose ancillary are all armor tankers, who are disappointed that ancillary armor rep is not good, and ancillary shield tankers have a better fighting chance.


for the form i fly all races and use shield and armor tank


I don't see what are you disagreeing against. What you said about faction reps and SB-s is true ofc. I'm just pointing out, that with ancillary at least there are alternatives for shield tankers, and an ancillary mwd would improve that. And that is why I've said an ancillary mwd would be a great addition, even with all of its drawbacks.
Zetak
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-08-01 09:48:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Zetak
Liafcipe9000 wrote:
ANCILLARY EVERYTHING


Sigh. Thank you for your high quality and informative contribution to the topic. I'm sure you make your parents very proud.
Lidia Caderu
Zero To High
Worst Alliance Ever
#25 - 2013-08-01 13:13:08 UTC
I just want to point that there are also old simple active tanking, which is mostly not used in PVP, because PVP always includes MWD's. People prefer ASB's and AAR's, lets than just remove old tanking modules from game as they are not used, with bonuses to active tank.

In order to use active tank with MWD you need to fit battery injector, which altogether uses tons of PG. Isn't better to have MWD+battery injection system together?

There might be limitations to that module ofc, its up to CCP how it might look like. But it doesn't have to consume batteries of large size in order not to run out cargo space.
without batteries charged it might provide same speed as afterburner, while consuming same amount of cap as MWD and increasing sig, might be different variants.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#26 - 2013-08-01 21:57:38 UTC
ASB was possibly a step in the right direction for bringing PvE and PvP type ships closer together. It is still flawed though.

It should have been a boost amplifier rather than a shield booster that gave a bonus to repair amount and reduced or eliminated the cap cost of the shield booster when active. It could have been better balanced by adjusting cycle times independently of the Shield Booster.

The same should be done for armor repair. As it stands the ASB is horrible because it allows massive active repair tanking without the need for cap, while the other side of the tanking equation remains the same.

MWD are powerful. If you don't like their cost, try out an afterburner instead. You get less benefit, but less penalty as well. Make your choices and live with your consequences.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#27 - 2013-08-01 22:07:48 UTC
Zetak wrote:

I don't see what are you disagreeing against. What you said about faction reps and SB-s is true ofc. I'm just pointing out, that with ancillary at least there are alternatives for shield tankers, and an ancillary mwd would improve that. And that is why I've said an ancillary mwd would be a great addition, even with all of its drawbacks.


are you seriously saying i think shield tanking is broken (which isn't true) and i want to fix it by creating an ancillary MWD ???

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-08-01 22:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Lidia Caderu wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Lidia Caderu wrote:
yeap, why not?



Because this was possible already at some point in the game and was stupidly OP.




Explain please.



Fit multiple MWD's sry wasn't clear when I posted this.

I'd actually be more for a balance on prop mods than add another prop mod like MJD.

When I first posted an idea about MJD was something included in the hull and for shorter ranges (10 km if I'm not mistaken) with 3min CD on blaster hulls only to help them achieve their job, getting melted while trying to get in range of targets shutting down your mwd and webbing you to death was not only silly but clearly stupid and still is.

Then MJD in current version hit TQ for all BSs and...blaster ships keep being melted unless in huge numbers supported by another huge number of logistics but they're nothing more than previous welpcane, just different and med blasters aren't much help by this change except once done the TE nerf since it's fall off that got mostly nerf and thus Matar Opness tràlàlà "I shoot you from there".

So now this is done lets go back to ancillary prop mods.

Current prop mods are actually somewhat weird. Afterburner has some sense, not enough speed bonus but has some sens and pretty much benefits from navigation skills, the 5% speed increase should be 10% in my opinion, indeed Navigation skills while being mandatory they have higher affect to your cap consumption than impact on your real navigation, a bit yes but not so important as they do to cap consumption.

Then you have mwd taking huge amounts of cap and fittings to function, benefits quite little of navigation skills and at the first scram you are completely f__k.
Imho a better balance before introducing new modules like medium and small MJDs or even ancillary prop mods would be a good step in the right direction to instead work on prop mods themselves then modules related like nanos overdrives etc and also navigation skills, I'd even start by those first.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#29 - 2013-08-01 23:44:28 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

With the ASB can shield tankers use cap charges like an armor tanker could before the ASBs got introduced. And with the AAR can armor tankers now repair their tank in a similar way by boosting the repair rate with nanite paste.

In short, it seems to be balanced and I can see no mistake.

If the ancillary shield booster merely reduced the activation cost by a number equal to the cap charge placed inside it I would say fine but it completely negates all cap usage making shield tanking invulnerable to cap warfare, and most shield tank ships use weapons that take no cap.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Balthazar Lestrane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-08-02 01:44:53 UTC
Ancillary MWD? So ASB missile boats will use even less capacitor? No thanks.
Whitehound
#31 - 2013-08-02 08:50:57 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Whitehound wrote:

With the ASB can shield tankers use cap charges like an armor tanker could before the ASBs got introduced. And with the AAR can armor tankers now repair their tank in a similar way by boosting the repair rate with nanite paste.

In short, it seems to be balanced and I can see no mistake.

If the ancillary shield booster merely reduced the activation cost by a number equal to the cap charge placed inside it I would say fine but it completely negates all cap usage making shield tanking invulnerable to cap warfare, and most shield tank ships use weapons that take no cap.

So does the cap booster, which I used in my comparison.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Previous page12