These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Afterburners Rebalanced

Author
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#1 - 2014-01-14 07:26:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
Right now, when making your choice of prop mod, there is (with a couple niche exceptions), one question you need to ask yourself to decide whether you should fit a MWD, or an AB.

"Am I fitting a brawling frigate, for use in lowsec, intended to be used solo against other frigates".

If all of the things above are true, then fitting an AB is a good choice - you need the scram-range maneuverability, even if it cripples you against kitey ships such as slicers or condors.

If any of those things are not true, however, then the AB is simply trash (barring certain other niches like oversized AB tengus). Obviously, you can't kite (beyond scram-range kite) with an AB. You cannot realistically fly in nullsec with an AB as you will have no ability to escape any bubble camps. If you're in a gang, scram-range maneuverability is vastly less important than being able to keep up with your gang and tackle stuff.

For every ship class above frigate, a MWD is standard. For frigate gangs (Even small ones), MWDs are mostly standard. Outside of the niche I have identified above, ABs only have utility with oversized (100mn) setups.

So, to reiterate: Afterburners are ****. And it's quite obvious why. All of the scram-immunity and capacitor savings in the world don't change the fact that an afterburning frigate is substantially slower than even a plated cruiser. With an AB, you cannot escape camps. You cannot tackle things (that don't willingly fight you). If you happen to land so much as 30km away from where a fight is happening, you will spend more of it burning into range than actually fighting.


Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as buffing AB speed. That would do terrible things to tracking mechanics and probably make small ships too good while not doing much for larger ones. Without a substantial overhaul of speed mechanics, the only way that we can make the afterburner an interesting, usable fitting choice is to give it some of what the MWD has.

Afterburners should be scriptable. Unscripted (or with one of the two scripts), the AB functions exactly as it does now - a modest speed boost at a low cap cost, and no ability to be shut down by scrams.

With the other script, the AB gains some of the attributes of a MWD, except worse. It will have:

-Identical sig bloom to a MWD
-Substantially higher cap cost compared to a MWD (enough to make up for the lack of a module-level capacitor penalty and then some; permarunning an AB in this mode should be virtually impossible)
-Similar heat damage to a MWD (ie higher than a normal AB)
-~75% of the speed boost of a MWD (Speed boost could be capped at some % value to avoid silliness with oversized AB fits, or just size-restrict ABs entirely).
-Still shut down by scrams

Ships that currently need to run their MWD often will still use a MWD. An interceptor or vagabond, for example, will not be able to justify the increased cap cost and decreased speed of an afterburner.

However, brawling ships will no longer be resigned to sitting on their target's face and not moving - in-combat maneuvering will actually be a thing, and they won't have to be relatively immobile bricks outside of scram-range in order to do it. However, to do this they have to give up what is still a fairly substantial amount of speed, as well as suffering entering combat with much lower cap than they would normally.


Thoughts?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2 - 2014-01-14 07:39:43 UTC
Except when you get scrammed MWDs are useless.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#3 - 2014-01-14 07:41:58 UTC
Orrrrrrr... you could probably....

Overheat your AB? Just a thought.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#4 - 2014-01-14 09:24:13 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as buffing AB speed. That would do terrible things to tracking mechanics and probably make small ships too good while not doing much for larger ones.


I think it probably would work, actually. Right now, frigate and cruiser ABs are niche but usable, so they're fine basically. The problem only really comes with BS ABs, which are hilariously bad because they give so little speed boost and BS agility is so bad. So just up the speed and maybe cut the mass penalty on BS ABs a bit?
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2014-01-14 09:28:39 UTC
Aaa no.


The only thing I think coudl and shoudl be done is create a 2MN 20 MN and 200 MN AB, with more push than the current ones, but more fitting (but less than woudl be usign an oversized one).

Somethign like 25-30% more push for somethign like twice the fitting and cap.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#6 - 2014-01-14 09:30:46 UTC
What about dual prop fits? If you want the utility of both AB and MWD, you can make those. Those dominated the meta for quite some time, so they are probably not bad.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2014-01-14 09:39:29 UTC
It think that it's a hugely important topic that steps outside AB and MWD. The movement mechnics in EVE are broken. Ships are relatively slow on thier own and very fast with MWD. So you move to catch the target but u sit still while fighting. This is stupid as hell spaceships that don't manouver in combat.... also sniping is quite stupid and range advantege is of little value since every ship can burn to 0 very fast. Add webs to it and EVE bocomes a game of static ships fighting.

So for me a long distance solution shoud be: increase all ships speed by 50%, remove MWD from the game, make AB like MWD (speed like AB but cap cost that only allows to burst it), nerf webs.

This would of course need a lot of adjusting since some distances in EVE ( PvE missions) can only be covered by MWD.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-01-14 09:44:59 UTC
Cassius Invictus wrote:
It think that it's a hugely important topic that steps outside AB and MWD. The movement mechnics in EVE are broken. Ships are relatively slow on thier own and very fast with MWD. So you move to catch the target but u sit still while fighting. This is stupid as hell spaceships that don't manouver in combat.... also sniping is quite stupid and range advantege is of little value since every ship can burn to 0 very fast. Add webs to it and EVE bocomes a game of static ships fighting.

So for me a long distance solution shoud be: increase all ships speed by 50%, remove MWD from the game, make AB like MWD (speed like AB but cap cost that only allows to burst it), nerf webs.

This would of course need a lot of adjusting since some distances in EVE ( PvE missions) can only be covered by MWD.



Mmm try to fight a group specialized in nano tactics. There is stil mobility. Granted is much less than in the past when the most powerful ship in eve were nanotyphoons, able to reach 15 km/s and do that while orbiting at 20 km distance.

Your approach is NOT the corret one. AB with the speed of MWD just make impossible to hit and damage anything. Want proof? Take a sttaber, fit a 100mn AB with snake set, orbit at 30 km your friend and ask him to try to hit you.....


What we need is more selection between No prop mod, AB and MWD. Soemthign between AB and MWD woudl be great, hence I suggested a 2mn 20mn and 200mn AB.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Sigras
Conglomo
#9 - 2014-01-14 10:21:00 UTC
I would kinda like to go the other way on this; instead of making them more similar, why not make them more different

What if the MWD gave you a further penalty to agility or twice the mass but extra force resulting in less agility but similar top speed.

Then the AB would actually give you an agility bonus instead of a mass penalty, maybe with increased cap cost so you couldnt just always have it on.

That way MWD users would be fast but not particularly quick, and AB users might be able to out maneuver MWD users but they would never be able to catch them in a straight line.

Thoughts?
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2014-01-14 10:56:16 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Cassius Invictus wrote:
It think that it's a hugely important topic that steps outside AB and MWD. The movement mechnics in EVE are broken. Ships are relatively slow on thier own and very fast with MWD. So you move to catch the target but u sit still while fighting. This is stupid as hell spaceships that don't manouver in combat.... also sniping is quite stupid and range advantege is of little value since every ship can burn to 0 very fast. Add webs to it and EVE bocomes a game of static ships fighting.

So for me a long distance solution shoud be: increase all ships speed by 50%, remove MWD from the game, make AB like MWD (speed like AB but cap cost that only allows to burst it), nerf webs.

This would of course need a lot of adjusting since some distances in EVE ( PvE missions) can only be covered by MWD.



Mmm try to fight a group specialized in nano tactics. There is stil mobility. Granted is much less than in the past when the most powerful ship in eve were nanotyphoons, able to reach 15 km/s and do that while orbiting at 20 km distance.

Your approach is NOT the corret one. AB with the speed of MWD just make impossible to hit and damage anything. Want proof? Take a sttaber, fit a 100mn AB with snake set, orbit at 30 km your friend and ask him to try to hit you.....


What we need is more selection between No prop mod, AB and MWD. Soemthign between AB and MWD woudl be great, hence I suggested a 2mn 20mn and 200mn AB.


I'm not saying it is Smile. What for me is important is that the base speed of the ship has more impact on the game. It is stupid that you need a propulsion mod for every ship to function. And I dont't want ab with speed of MWD. I want AB with cap consumption of MWD Big smile. Yep nano fighting is fine, but u can't snipe with a Apocalypse fleet becouse the enemy can cover the sniping distance with MWD very quickly.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#11 - 2014-01-14 11:01:18 UTC
I see a lot of AB fits, so..... Yea. Leave the AB alone, it's fine.
Cassius Invictus
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2014-01-14 11:01:30 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I would kinda like to go the other way on this; instead of making them more similar, why not make them more different

What if the MWD gave you a further penalty to agility or twice the mass but extra force resulting in less agility but similar top speed.

Then the AB would actually give you an agility bonus instead of a mass penalty, maybe with increased cap cost so you couldnt just always have it on.

That way MWD users would be fast but not particularly quick, and AB users might be able to out maneuver MWD users but they would never be able to catch them in a straight line.

Thoughts?


Yep that is a good direction. But still MWD is just too fast. It brakes a lot things like speed difference between classes, importance of weapons range, need for broken values on webs etc. MWD should be limited to interceptor, attack ships. Others should use AB or no prop mod at all. The solution is also to drastically increase fitting requirements., So a MWD fleet would have no chance face to face with AB fitted fleet.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2014-01-14 11:58:45 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I would kinda like to go the other way on this; instead of making them more similar, why not make them more different

What if the MWD gave you a further penalty to agility or twice the mass but extra force resulting in less agility but similar top speed.

Then the AB would actually give you an agility bonus instead of a mass penalty, maybe with increased cap cost so you couldnt just always have it on.

That way MWD users would be fast but not particularly quick, and AB users might be able to out maneuver MWD users but they would never be able to catch them in a straight line.

Thoughts?



Not possible. BEcause in eve the same agility that controls your turning is the one that rules your acceleration.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Leafar Nightfall
Silent Owls
#14 - 2014-01-14 12:10:06 UTC
I don't see the problem as an AB problem. They seem to work as intended, the problem is they only work in a niche as you said. So what needs fixing isn't the AB, is the niche. For that, I can think of two things:

-Long Range Webs: Webs should be like points, where there is one for close range and strongest (two points and shuts down MWD) and one for long range and half the strength. A web with 20km range and ~25% speed penalty would help close the gap between AB and MWD, while making kiting more viable in MWD x MWD engagements

-Warp Scrambler Bubble: Same analogy as above. Smaller bubble that shuts down MWD. AB would be viable since you'd be able to cover the smaller radius, MWD disabling bubble in about the same time you'd take to cover the larger radius bubble with a MWD
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2014-01-14 14:26:29 UTC
Leafar Nightfall wrote:
I don't see the problem as an AB problem. They seem to work as intended, the problem is they only work in a niche as you said. So what needs fixing isn't the AB, is the niche. For that, I can think of two things:

-Long Range Webs: Webs should be like points, where there is one for close range and strongest (two points and shuts down MWD) and one for long range and half the strength. A web with 20km range and ~25% speed penalty would help close the gap between AB and MWD, while making kiting more viable in MWD x MWD engagements

-Warp Scrambler Bubble: Same analogy as above. Smaller bubble that shuts down MWD. AB would be viable since you'd be able to cover the smaller radius, MWD disabling bubble in about the same time you'd take to cover the larger radius bubble with a MWD


A 20 km web even with only 25% reduction would be a HUGE change on metagame, woudl need to be weighted MUCH more carefully. Basically would REmove completely blaster ships from game as competitive ships.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Leafar Nightfall
Silent Owls
#16 - 2014-01-14 14:50:30 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

A 20 km web even with only 25% reduction would be a HUGE change on metagame, woudl need to be weighted MUCH more carefully. Basically would REmove completely blaster ships from game as competitive ships.


I don't think it would remove blasters, it would only bring kiting above ~14000km to the game. Blaster fits have more spare powergrid and cpu to fit speed mods since rails "cost" more to fit. Currently, if your ship is fast enough, it usually is more worth to go close range with high dps then stay far, since anything faster will get close to you anyway. There is no means of kiting other then raw speed nowadays.

Of course, I don't know what would be a balanced value for speed penalty and fitting requirements for a "long range web". But I don't see it as much more advantageous then fitting a web today. If balanced correctly, it would only add more viable engagement ranges through range control.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#17 - 2014-01-14 14:56:17 UTC
Quote:
Except when you get scrammed MWDs are useless.


Meant for that to be in the OP. Added.

Quote:
I would kinda like to go the other way on this; instead of making them more similar, why not make them more different

What if the MWD gave you a further penalty to agility or twice the mass but extra force resulting in less agility but similar top speed.

Then the AB would actually give you an agility bonus instead of a mass penalty, maybe with increased cap cost so you couldnt just always have it on.

That way MWD users would be fast but not particularly quick, and AB users might be able to out maneuver MWD users but they would never be able to catch them in a straight line.

Thoughts?


AB would still have all of the problems I listed in the OP. There is no substitute for going fast. No iteration of the afterburner will be viable unless it lets you go fast (even if it isn't quite as fast as with a MWD)

Quote:
I don't see the problem as an AB problem. They seem to work as intended, the problem is they only work in a niche as you said. So what needs fixing isn't the AB, is the niche. For that, I can think of two things:


Neither of those would affect the niche I talked about. The problem with the niche is that it only contains one of the five classes of subcapital ships in the game, and it only works in 1v1 scenarios.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#18 - 2014-01-14 14:58:55 UTC
when you consider that afterburners used to not even have a niche at all, I would say they're doing just fine.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#19 - 2014-01-14 15:02:03 UTC
Batelle wrote:
when you consider that afterburners used to not even have a niche at all, I would say they're doing just fine.


Are they?

Under what circumstance would you consider using a 10mn or 100mn AB in a PVP scenario?
Stitch Kaneland
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#20 - 2014-01-14 15:18:46 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Batelle wrote:
when you consider that afterburners used to not even have a niche at all, I would say they're doing just fine.


Are they?

Under what circumstance would you consider using a 10mn or 100mn AB in a PVP scenario?


100mn on cruiser hulls generally only work with missile boats. Ive used a dual prop scyfi for brawling. Low sig, plus speed and no tracking from turrets means i can orbit you at 500m in a cruiser with a destroyer size sig radius. Afterburners are for speed and sig tanking. Good defense against missiles too.
123Next page