These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Kronos] Tweaks to Ascendancy Omegas and Warp Speed Rigs

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2014-05-07 12:51:21 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:


I cant recall seeing a single battleship for roaming in the last few months.


looking in the wrong places

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#82 - 2014-05-07 13:06:10 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Michael Harari wrote:


I cant recall seeing a single battleship for roaming in the last few months.


looking in the wrong places


Ive seen you roaming, never in anything larger than a cruiser though.
Luscius Uta
#83 - 2014-05-07 13:22:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.


The stacking penalty for warp speed rigs is something they should have always had since the beginning. Stacking penalties go a long way to making rig and module combination choices interesting instead of just slapping a max number of one thing onto your ship, and this change will keep warp rigs competitive while also providing some more interesting choices around what your third rig should be. For the record, the stacking penalty only applies to other warp speed rigs, not to the warp speed implants.



Stacking penalties were introduced to prevent stuff like Amarr Battleships doing 2k DPS or going 5 km/s (I made up those numbers as I started playing in 2011). Since there are no modules increasing warp speed or acceleration and since ships have only 2 or 3 rig slots, I fail to see a point in putting stacking penalties to warp speed rigs.

If you plan to introduce modules which will increase warp speed or acceleration, I'm all up for it as it will make traveling in a Battleship much less tedious, but I would like to see a purpose of introducing stacking penalties now when we'll have to wait X more months for this module.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2014-05-07 13:31:46 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I just got back to work after a bit of post-fanfest death plague recovery. I'm working through a bunch of threads to catch up on what was discussed over Fanfest and the last two days.

I'm all caught up on this thread and I want to quickly address a few things mentioned:

The stacking penalty for warp speed rigs is something they should have always had since the beginning. Stacking penalties go a long way to making rig and module combination choices interesting instead of just slapping a max number of one thing onto your ship, and this change will keep warp rigs competitive while also providing some more interesting choices around what your third rig should be. For the record, the stacking penalty only applies to other warp speed rigs, not to the warp speed implants.

Battleship use is very healthy since the warp speed changes. We're keeping a close eye on how people are using the ship classes most affected by the changes and of course many people in the office use battleships for our own activities ingame. So far we are not afraid of battleships becoming uncompetitive.

We'll continue to look at the stats of the Ascendancies and the WS- implants. It's possible that these changes don't go far enough, and we're open to making more.


Hi Fozzie just wanted to add my voice to those asking for clarification on how battleships are being used. They are certainly not (at least from my empirical experience) roaming anywhere.

At the present time for me, with no fixed abode, they are unusable except in contrived situations. I for one would like you to reverse this.

Are you able to provide data that contradicts my position (i.e. numbers of battleships traversing gates in low or null sec)?
I find it hard to believe that it was a design goal to reduce the desirability battleship use in mobile gangs, but this is what has happened.

For clarification, I am not interested in their use in PVE, so we could elide all hi-sec gate transitions from that data in order to get a reasonable idea of roaming pvp use.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#85 - 2014-05-07 13:50:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I just got back to work after a bit of post-fanfest death plague recovery. I'm working through a bunch of threads to catch up on what was discussed over Fanfest and the last two days.

I'm all caught up on this thread and I want to quickly address a few things mentioned:

The stacking penalty for warp speed rigs is something they should have always had since the beginning. Stacking penalties go a long way to making rig and module combination choices interesting instead of just slapping a max number of one thing onto your ship, and this change will keep warp rigs competitive while also providing some more interesting choices around what your third rig should be. For the record, the stacking penalty only applies to other warp speed rigs, not to the warp speed implants.

Battleship use is very healthy since the warp speed changes. We're keeping a close eye on how people are using the ship classes most affected by the changes and of course many people in the office use battleships for our own activities ingame. So far we are not afraid of battleships becoming uncompetitive.

We'll continue to look at the stats of the Ascendancies and the WS- implants. It's possible that these changes don't go far enough, and we're open to making more.


if you think stacking penalties make things have interesting choices then why on earth havent you put them on the most goddamn popular rigs in the game (trimarks & cdfes), instead you're putting them on some niche rigs which ALREADY have one of the harshest drawbacks in game (6%~ cpu per rig)

pretty sure i'd think this was idiotic even if i didn't have a titan rigged with these things

if you want to rebalance them then do that instead of slapping a mechanic which as no precedence on. cargo rigs, trimarks, cdfes all do exactly the same thing and don't stacking penalize [% increase to a stat] so why on earth would you only add penalties to hyperspatials - just because you don't like them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
El Space Mariachi
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#86 - 2014-05-07 13:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: El Space Mariachi
fozzie you know something? you really are a silly billy

please be consistent. if you're going to say something like "stacking penalties create choices" you have to realise the hypocrisy of applying penalties to some types of a module (rig in this case) but not others. trimarks and CDFEs actually have a stacking BONUS which is just plain silly. please tell me you can realise this is an oddity and that hanging around kil2 too long hasn't fogged your brain this much. i believed in you once upon a time fozzie. i still DO believe in you. please don't come down with risitis.

thanks,

the DON

dictated but not read

gay gamers for jesus
SubjectTen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#87 - 2014-05-07 13:55:17 UTC
Capqu wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Thanks for the feedback so far.

I just got back to work after a bit of post-fanfest death plague recovery. I'm working through a bunch of threads to catch up on what was discussed over Fanfest and the last two days.

I'm all caught up on this thread and I want to quickly address a few things mentioned:

The stacking penalty for warp speed rigs is something they should have always had since the beginning. Stacking penalties go a long way to making rig and module combination choices interesting instead of just slapping a max number of one thing onto your ship, and this change will keep warp rigs competitive while also providing some more interesting choices around what your third rig should be. For the record, the stacking penalty only applies to other warp speed rigs, not to the warp speed implants.

Battleship use is very healthy since the warp speed changes. We're keeping a close eye on how people are using the ship classes most affected by the changes and of course many people in the office use battleships for our own activities ingame. So far we are not afraid of battleships becoming uncompetitive.

We'll continue to look at the stats of the Ascendancies and the WS- implants. It's possible that these changes don't go far enough, and we're open to making more.


if you think stacking penalties make things have interesting choices then why on earth havent you put them on the most goddamn popular rigs in the game (trimarks & cdfes), instead you're putting them on some niche rigs which ALREADY have one of the harshest drawbacks in game (6%~ cpu per rig)

pretty sure i'd think this was idiotic even if i didn't have a titan rigged with these things


fozzie pls read this tia
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#88 - 2014-05-07 16:19:24 UTC
These posts are valid and make a good point, especially in regards to the stealth stacking buff on buffer rigs. Consistency is good, m'kay?

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2014-05-07 16:30:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We'll continue to look at the stats of the Ascendancies and the WS- implants. It's possible that these changes don't go far enough, and we're open to making more.


I like numbers. Including the proposed change of 70% to HG Omega and 35% to LG Omega, but adding a stacking penalty so that using a WS-6xx with Ascendancy gives the WS bonus a 0.87x penalty, produces a decent progression.:

HG + HG Omega (>115m): 62.17%
HG + WS-618 (510m): 54.75%
HG + WS-615 (140m): 51.26%
HG + LG Omega (>70m): 47.46%
HG + WS-610 (22m): 45.44%
HG + WS-608 (10m): 43.11%
HG + WS-605 (1m): 39.62%

LG + HG Omega (>115m): 47.92%
LG + WS-618 (510m): 46.26%
LG + WS-615 (140m): 42.96%
LG + WS-610 (22m): 37.46%
LG + LG Omega (>70m): 36.87%
LG + WS-608 (10m): 35.26%
LG + WS-605 (1m): 31.96%

LG Omega still struggles to find use, but if its bonus changes to 40% instead of 35%, along with the proposed WS-6xx stacking penalty, it would potentially have a viable niche at 49.50% with the HG and 38.41% with the LG.

(Prices based on a minimum material cost/Jita eye-ball)
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#90 - 2014-05-07 16:32:57 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We'll continue to look at the stats of the Ascendancies and the WS- implants. It's possible that these changes don't go far enough, and we're open to making more.


I like numbers. Including the proposed change of 70% to HG Omega and 35% to LG Omega, but adding a stacking penalty so that using a WS-6xx with Ascendancy gives the WS bonus a 0.87x penalty, produces a decent progression.:

HG + HG Omega (>115m): 62.17%
HG + WS-618 (510m): 54.75%
HG + WS-615 (140m): 51.26%
HG + LG Omega (>70m): 47.46%
HG + WS-610 (22m): 45.44%
HG + WS-608 (10m): 43.11%
HG + WS-605 (1m): 39.62%

LG + HG Omega (>115m): 47.92%
LG + WS-618 (510m): 46.26%
LG + WS-615 (140m): 42.96%
LG + WS-610 (22m): 37.46%
LG + LG Omega (>70m): 36.87%
LG + WS-608 (10m): 35.26%
LG + WS-605 (1m): 31.96%

LG Omega still struggles to find use, but if its bonus changes to 40% instead of 35%, along with the proposed WS-6xx stacking penalty, it would potentially have a viable niche at 49.50% with the HG and 38.41% with the LG.

(Prices based on a minimum material cost/Jita eye-ball)


stacking penalties on implants are not something that should ever happen, because at least that area of the game is consistent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#91 - 2014-05-07 17:39:37 UTC
Adding stacking penalties to HP and Cap modifiers is something we've been considering for a while, and very well may happen at some point.

That being said, if you want to argue on consistency I'll simply say that since all other mobility modifying rigs are stacking penalized, the warp speed ones should be as well.

We here are CCP are very sorry about how two of the rigs on your titan will be getting a bit less effective.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#92 - 2014-05-07 17:43:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Adding stacking penalties to HP and Cap modifiers is something we've been considering for a while, and very well may happen at some point.

That being said, if you want to argue on consistency I'll simply say that since all other mobility modifying rigs are stacking penalized, the warp speed ones should be as well.

We here are CCP are very sorry about how two of the rigs on your titan will be getting a bit less effective.


okay, ignoring consistency what about what you said about making interesting choices re: third rig slot when the most common rigs in the game have the opposite going for it

why would you start with a niche rig that noone uses and punish those that do and go from there?

also trimarks modify mobility Cool

edit: pretend i dont have a warp speed rigged titan, is what im saying really unreasonable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#93 - 2014-05-08 00:08:33 UTC
The more I think about the warp speed rigs getting stacking penalties, the more I think they should have higher baseline stats (alongside the newly added stacking penalties).

They are very seldom used as they both remove the capacity to put a combat-oriented rig in that slot and have fitting penalties.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2014-05-08 06:13:46 UTC
Stacking penalty makes sense, but it would be nice if the rigs were buffed a little to compensate for the decrease in maximum achievable value.
Nano Sito
#95 - 2014-05-08 07:40:21 UTC
I think CCP is too busy looking at statistics, such as number of BS being flown, and they think that's representative of how "healthy" a ship class is.

Wrong.

Many people have invested heavily in skill points to be able to fly faction BS and Marauders, so they aren't giving up on them just cause you made then unbearably slow. They just stick to certain areas of space (HI SEC mostly) and spend most of the time in a warp tunnel. They'll give up on the game altogether when they're bored out of their minds.

It's being said before, but here it goes again: HEY FOZZIE, GIVE AN EPIC ARC A TRY IN YOUR BATTLESHIP AND LET US KNOW IF THAT'S YOUR IDEA OF A FUN GAME.

May I remind you all that this is a game! MAKE IT FUN FOR GOD'S SAKE! The hyper-spacial rig was crap before the stacking penalties, it needed a huge boost to make it worth to choose over other types of rigs like damage or shields. Now its existence is utterly pointless.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2014-05-08 08:22:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Adding stacking penalties to HP and Cap modifiers is something we've been considering for a while, and very well may happen at some point.

That being said, if you want to argue on consistency I'll simply say that since all other mobility modifying rigs are stacking penalized, the warp speed ones should be as well.

We here are CCP are very sorry about how two of the rigs on your titan will be getting a bit less effective.


Adding stacking penalties to HP rigs is reasonable, I'd like to see trimarks with more effective base stats and a stacking penalty. It would mean that I could justify a more interesting rig in my third slot.
It would be a shame if this lead us down the slippery slope of stacking penalties to 1600mm plating and field extenders. Smile

Adding stacking penalties to cap rigs is reasonable also. It'll give mission runners the opportunity of learning about cap management.

However, if you do this I suggest you'll want to look at increasing the base cap recharge of dreads and carriers.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Phoenix Torp
Almost Absolute
#97 - 2014-05-08 19:32:48 UTC
By the way... can you give a bit of love to those WD-604 and similar implants? Every time you see his price in Jita a kitten die. STAPH this injustice!

http://eveboard.com/pilot/Phoenix_Torp
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2014-05-11 23:07:16 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Adding stacking penalties to HP and Cap modifiers is something we've been considering for a while, and very well may happen at some point.

That being said, if you want to argue on consistency I'll simply say that since all other mobility modifying rigs are stacking penalized, the warp speed ones should be as well.

We here are CCP are very sorry about how two of the rigs on your titan will be getting a bit less effective.

Are the current bonus on the WS Rigs going to remain the same ? Or will you buff them slightly so that the current top speed with them now, will be the same after the change... Cause that's what I'd like to see.

WS Rigs, especially on an Orca, or soon to be a Freighter, don't need to be reduced any, so I hope there is a buff to the rigs themselves to help offset the nerf.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-05-11 23:08:04 UTC
Phoenix Torp wrote:
By the way... can you give a bit of love to those WD-604 and similar implants? Every time you see his price in Jita a kitten die. STAPH this injustice!

4% implants generally come from Concord LP.. And most people buying implants with Concord LP are gonna get 6%'s.. they sell for more, and most importantly, move a LOT faster.
Luscius Uta
#100 - 2014-05-12 07:02:06 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:


Adding stacking penalties to cap rigs is reasonable also. It'll give mission runners the opportunity of learning about cap management.

However, if you do this I suggest you'll want to look at increasing the base cap recharge of dreads and carriers.


Nothing says "elitism" more than requesting a certain mechanics to be nerfed and yet in the very next sentence requesting to be buffed, just so to prevent it from applying to your playstyle.

I'd hate to see stacking penalties on cap rechargers/relays/CCC rigs, it would be worst idea in the history of CCP Fozzie, but at the same time I would be amused by all the tears from triage carrier pilots.

Workarounds are not bugfixes.