These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[June] [Updated] Module Tiericide - Afterburners & Microwarpdrives

First post First post
Author
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#321 - 2015-05-12 18:02:39 UTC
Hey Mates,

I've made an update to the original post, go check it out!

Here is a preview -
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Q: CCP can you please make Afterburners faster?!
A: We have chosen not too for this balance pass. We are mostly happy with where afterburners are at in general. Buffing afterburners makes over-sized fits even more attractive than they currently are.

Q: CCP I am worried about the increase in Microwarpdrive speed bonuses.
A: We have looked at this very closely, and we’re comfortable with the very small speed increase MWD fitted ships will get. In most cases its less than 4%. A max faction speed fit overheating Garmur goes from 13085 m/s before the changes, to 13140 m/s after.
Here is a list of the speed increases we expect to see across hull sizes and fits:
  • [ship] ([fitting description]) Prepatch [speed] / [overloaded speed] > Postpatch [speed] / [overloaded speed]
  • Regular Garmur (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 5015 / 7251 > Postpatch 5176 / 7281
  • Kestrel (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 3480 / 5017 > Postpatch 3770 / 5290
  • Svipul (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 3572 / 5107 > Postpatch 3683 / 5129
  • Orthrus (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 3054 / 4421 > Postpatch 3152 / 4439
  • Augoror Navy Issue (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 1896 / 2719 > Postpatch 1938 / 2705
  • Ishtar (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 2084 / 3004 > Postpatch 2149 / 3016
  • Drake (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 1316 / 1882 > Postpatch 1356 / 1889
  • Tornado (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 2077 / 2968 > Postpatch 2141 / 2980
  • Machariel (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 1994 / 2885 > Postpatch 2058 / 2897
  • Abaddon (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 896 / 1292 > Postpatch 922 / 1294

All of that said, we understand your concerns about the current nano-esk meta. We're going to look into that separately.

Q: I don’t like the long names / flavor names / descriptor names!!
A: Sorry. Other people do like them =)



As always, feedback is welcome & encouraged.

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#322 - 2015-05-12 18:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Hey Mates,

Q: CCP can you please make Afterburners faster?!
A: We have chosen not too for this balance pass. We are mostly happy with where afterburners are at in general. Buffing afterburners makes over-sized fits even more attractive than they currently are.


then please consider size limitations on AB's i.e. small AB's 1mn's being small ship only ..etc..
also have you considered nerfing webs a little.. 60% is quite hefty not even mentioning the 90% ones.. they make AB's quite useless..

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

Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#323 - 2015-05-12 18:09:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
CCP Larrikin wrote:

All of that said, we understand your concerns about the current nano-esk meta. We're going to look into that separately.

Q: I don’t like the long names / flavor names / descriptor names!!
A: Sorry. Other people do like them =)


CCP Larrikin wrote:
All of that said, we understand your concerns about the current nano-esk meta. We're going to look into that separately.


CCP Larrikin wrote:
We're going to look into that separately.


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Alexis Nightwish
#324 - 2015-05-12 18:37:16 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q: CCP I am worried about the increase in Microwarpdrive speed bonuses.
A: We have looked at this very closely, and we’re comfortable with the very small speed increase MWD fitted ships will get. In most cases its less than 4%...
*sigh*
Guess the only thing I'll need to do after the patch is update all my fittings with Y-T8s. Still no point in using ABs on anything that doesn't have spikes. Sad

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

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#325 - 2015-05-12 18:48:29 UTC
Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse?
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#326 - 2015-05-12 18:58:57 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q: CCP I am worried about the increase in Microwarpdrive speed bonuses.
A: We have looked at this very closely, and we’re comfortable with the very small speed increase MWD fitted ships will get. In most cases its less than 4%...
*sigh*
Guess the only thing I'll need to do after the patch is update all my fittings with Y-T8s. Still no point in using ABs on anything that doesn't have spikes. Sad


Yeah, why would you ever pick an option that gives you a fifth of the speed bonus of the other? The only thing I can think of is PvE, where you don't really need to speed, you just need to added avoidance.

How ironic, the only case where afterburner are needed is when you don't actually need speed :D

As for the oversized "issue"... It is only an "issue" on T3Ds and they have been heavily nerfed already. Every other frigate or dessie has huuuge troubles fitting 10mn ABs.

As for 100mn ABs... Have you seen the inertia? I tried a 100MN AB on a Phantasm once. Suffice to say, 35sec alignment didn't really convince me that they were over-powered... Yet we were talking about a ship that has a BONUS to ABs, it wasn't even a random ship with an oversized prop mod.

TL;DR: So yeah... I don't really see the point of not making ABs faster, because :
A - Their current state is so bad that people who fit them aren't looking for speed.
and B - The idea of giving oversized prop mods a buff is a non-issue since most oversized fits (if not all) are completely rubbish at best.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#327 - 2015-05-12 19:36:24 UTC
Quote:
13085


when are you fixing this
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#328 - 2015-05-12 19:40:24 UTC
also no reply too making an agility based meta for AB or mwd .. even at a faction level at least..

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

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#329 - 2015-05-12 19:48:52 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse?

Why does CCP keep dancing around this question?
Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured?

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

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2015-05-12 20:23:46 UTC
CCP.. what's the deal with the changes to the X-Type 1(5)00mn Microwarpdrives?

Specifically, at the moment, Core-X has the easiest Fitting costs. Gist-X uses the least Cap. Both have 0 Cap Penalty.
After the change, if I'm reading the spreadsheet right..
Core-X will use the least PG, and have the lowest Activation Cost.
Gist-X will now use more Cap (Currently 270, changing to 320), and all it gets out of that is a Signature reduction, which on BS's is not nearly as important as a on Frigs and Cruisers.

In short, Gist X went from the best X-Type where Fitting is not an issue, to the worst regardless of fitting, except in a very few specific cases where you want to Sig-Tank a MWD BS.. which is just silly on the outset. Seems kinda messed up.
CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#331 - 2015-05-12 22:17:52 UTC
Altrue wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Q: CCP I am worried about the increase in Microwarpdrive speed bonuses.
A: We have looked at this very closely, and we’re comfortable with the very small speed increase MWD fitted ships will get. In most cases its less than 4%...
*sigh*
Guess the only thing I'll need to do after the patch is update all my fittings with Y-T8s. Still no point in using ABs on anything that doesn't have spikes. Sad


Yeah, why would you ever pick an option that gives you a fifth of the speed bonus of the other? The only thing I can think of is PvE, where you don't really need to speed, you just need to added avoidance.

Let me tell you about Armor HACs...Sig tanking still works pretty good in PVP =)
An Atron getting shot at by a light missile Kestrel, takes about 40% less damage if he's ABing instead of MWDing, excluding any webs/painters/fleet bonuses/etc.


Altrue wrote:
The idea of giving oversized prop mods a buff is a non-issue since most oversized fits (if not all) are completely rubbish at best.

Huh.


TrouserDeagle wrote:
Quote:
13085

when are you fixing this

Probably not this patch, Sorry.

Harvey James wrote:
also no reply too making an agility based meta for AB or mwd .. even at a faction level at least..

Also not this patch. I think its a cool idea though, but I would want to do a bunch of testing to make sure it doesn't break something.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse?

Why does CCP keep dancing around this question?
Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured?

You are talking about Meta 0 "1MN Afterburner I" right? We want a clear progression from T1 > Meta > T2.

Sniper Smith wrote:
CCP.. what's the deal with the changes to the X-Type 1(5)00mn Microwarpdrives?

Specifically, at the moment, Core-X has the easiest Fitting costs. Gist-X uses the least Cap. Both have 0 Cap Penalty.
After the change, if I'm reading the spreadsheet right..
Core-X will use the least PG, and have the lowest Activation Cost.
Gist-X will now use more Cap (Currently 270, changing to 320), and all it gets out of that is a Signature reduction, which on BS's is not nearly as important as a on Frigs and Cruisers.

In short, Gist X went from the best X-Type where Fitting is not an issue, to the worst regardless of fitting, except in a very few specific cases where you want to Sig-Tank a MWD BS.. which is just silly on the outset. Seems kinda messed up.


Core (Gallente / Serpentis) have higher CPU Usage (tf) fitting requirements and lower Activation Cost (GJ).
Gist (Minmatar / Angel) have higher Powergrid Usage (MW) fitting requirements and lower Signature Radius Bonus (%).
The original Core/Gist bonuses where a little misaligned from the lore, we took this opportunity to fix that.

Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#332 - 2015-05-12 22:18:13 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
CCP.. what's the deal with the changes to the X-Type 1(5)00mn Microwarpdrives?

Specifically, at the moment, Core-X has the easiest Fitting costs. Gist-X uses the least Cap. Both have 0 Cap Penalty.
After the change, if I'm reading the spreadsheet right..
Core-X will use the least PG, and have the lowest Activation Cost.
Gist-X will now use more Cap (Currently 270, changing to 320), and all it gets out of that is a Signature reduction, which on BS's is not nearly as important as a on Frigs and Cruisers.

In short, Gist X went from the best X-Type where Fitting is not an issue, to the worst regardless of fitting, except in a very few specific cases where you want to Sig-Tank a MWD BS.. which is just silly on the outset. Seems kinda messed up.

Gist has to have the same bonus types at all sizes. Core has to have the same bonus types for all sizes. One is easier for shield fits and one is easier for armor fits.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#333 - 2015-05-12 22:24:17 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Altrue wrote:
The idea of giving oversized prop mods a buff is a non-issue since most oversized fits (if not all) are completely rubbish at best.

Huh.


Not the best argument I've ever received, I have to confess P.

But in all seriousness though, I genuinely don't understand why oversized prop afterburners are OP. Again, few things can fit the 10mn oversized apart from tech 3 destroyers -which have been nerfed precisely to penalize that practice-. As for 100mn, they aren't a viable option for PvP given the ridiculously low agility they offer.

I admit I didn't think, at the time, about PvE fits. I know for instance that BRAVE uses a lot of Vexor Navy Issues in 100mn for ratting... But that's literally all I can think of in terms of 100mn AB use. Both in PvE AND PvP.


And even if there are some really strong fits still out there with 10/100mn oversized ABs... That shouldn't stop you from buffing them for the 95% other part of the eve playerbase who would be delighted to see non-oversized ABs get a serious kick in terms of speed.

Surely the design team could come up with something to keep oversized ABs at their current level. For instance by diminishing the impact that oversized ABs have on speed.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#334 - 2015-05-12 22:54:26 UTC
Any chance you can mark out what has changed between your original proposal and the update?

I didn't memorise the OP and spreadsheets first time around, I'm afraid!

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#335 - 2015-05-12 23:03:58 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse?

Why does CCP keep dancing around this question?
Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured?

You are talking about Meta 0 "1MN Afterburner I" right? We want a clear progression from T1 > Meta > T2.

That clear progression is making Meta 0 modules in a state of useless though, and unless you are going to nerf the crap out of meta drops this will continue.
According to eve central there are about 74000 limited 1mn afterburners available averaging 9k isk selling and 3700 isk buying.
There are 64000 meta 0 1mn afterburners available averaging 14300 isk selling and 11k isk buying.

This trend will continue as meta modules are only governed by the number of players killing rats that can drop the modules, where as meta 0 have to be manufactured giving them a clear cost.

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

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#336 - 2015-05-12 23:30:02 UTC
Altrue wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:


Altrue wrote:
The idea of giving oversized prop mods a buff is a non-issue since most oversized fits (if not all) are completely rubbish at best.

Huh.


Not the best argument I've ever received, I have to confess P.

Hah, sorry. TBH I wasn't sure if you where trolling or not Smile


Altrue wrote:
But in all seriousness though, I genuinely don't understand why oversized prop afterburners are OP. Again, few things can fit the 10mn oversized apart from tech 3 destroyers -which have been nerfed precisely to penalize that practice-. As for 100mn, they aren't a viable option for PvP given the ridiculously low agility they offer.

Yes, the agility is horrible on over-sized prop mod fits, but many ships don't require agility (missile & drone doctrines, for example, don't need to worry about tracking). Otherwise, just turn your prop mod off, align/shoot/whatever & only turn it back on when you feel the need for speed.


Altrue wrote:
And even if there are some really strong fits still out there with 10/100mn oversized ABs... That shouldn't stop you from buffing them for the 95% other part of the eve playerbase who would be delighted to see non-oversized ABs get a serious kick in terms of speed.

Not unless all you ever want to see in your space killing your doodz is that "really strong fit".


Altrue wrote:
Surely the design team could come up with something to keep oversized ABs at their current level. For instance by diminishing the impact that oversized ABs have on speed.

Sure, and we have. The ridiculously low agility is one of the tools we use to limit their impact.

But more importantly, whats the argument for increasing the speed of afterburners? ABs where never ment to compete with MWDs in terms of speed. They provide interesting fitting choices with many trade-offs :
  • Lower activation cost
  • No capacitor penalty
  • No signature penalty
  • Easier fitting requirements
  • Don't turn off when Warp Scrambled
And yes, slower.

Signature tanking is super effective. A RLML Cerberus will do half as much damage to a fleet bonused 1MN AB frigate compared to 5MN MWD frigate. A large part of the effectiveness of Proteus & Legion fleets you see flying around Nullsec is due to the AB they have fit diminishing incoming damage.
Dual prop (or even triple prop fits) can be incredibly powerful, combining speed & signature tanking.
And yes, over-fitting is another interesting choice. Getting back a chunk of the speed but loosing agility.

Generally, we think afterburners are in a pretty good spot right now.

Scatim Helicon wrote:
Any chance you can mark out what has changed between your original proposal and the update?

I didn't memorise the OP and spreadsheets first time around, I'm afraid!

Most of the changes are in the Deadspace mods, with a tweek or two in the faction mods. If I have time tomorrow at work I'll try and highlight the changes from version 1.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse?

Why does CCP keep dancing around this question?
Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured?

You are talking about Meta 0 "1MN Afterburner I" right? We want a clear progression from T1 > Meta > T2.

That clear progression is making Meta 0 modules in a state of useless though, and unless you are going to nerf the crap out of meta drops this will continue.
According to eve central there are about 74000 limited 1mn afterburners available averaging 9k isk selling and 3700 isk buying.
There are 64000 meta 0 1mn afterburners available averaging 14300 isk selling and 11k isk buying.

This trend will continue as meta modules are only governed by the number of players killing rats that can drop the modules, where as meta 0 have to be manufactured giving them a clear cost.

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.



Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#337 - 2015-05-12 23:49:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
CCP Larrikin wrote:

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.

The current problem is that Meta are so common that T1 never gets used.
No-one is asking for T1 to be better than Meta.

But consider the following module, it does 4 things (doesn't matter what those things are.).
T1: +5% +5% +5% +5% Overall +20%
Meta: +7% +4% +7% +4% Overall +22%
T2: +7% +7% +7% +7% Overall +28%

You now have a situation where T1 modules are a cheap easy fit option for overall performance. Meta modules are for highlighting a specific aspect of the module at the expense of others. And T2 modules are for overall high performance at increased fitting costs.
T1 now has a point beyond simply being used to build T2.
Exact numbers could be tweaked for the overall bonus to land between the two as required, and may even mean Meta would slightly beat T2 in just a single area, but far below T2 in others.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#338 - 2015-05-13 01:01:28 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.

Not asking for T1 to be better than meta, but for there to be meaningful choices when it comes to selecting your modules.

This is an example that i drew up from another thread.

5MN Microwarpdrive I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Compact Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1 ; Powergrid 14 (-1); CPU 21 (-4); Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Enduring Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 35 (-10); Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Restrained Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -20(-5); Signature Bonus 450%(-50); Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%]

(New Concept Item) 5MN Upgraded Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 505 (+5)%; Overload Bonus 50%]

5MN Microwarpdrive II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 17; CPU 25; Activation 50; Cap Penalty -20; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 510 (+10)%; Overload Bonus 50%]

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

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#339 - 2015-05-13 05:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
CCP Larrikin wrote:

Lots of good stuff


Hey thanks for the extensive answer :)
I'm won't say I share all your opinions, but its super cool to have more details on the point of view of the devs on the matter Big smile Sorry if you thought that I was trolling.

I do agree with you that ABs have other advantages, and they should definitely remain noticeably slower than MWDs. However, I wanted to point out the gap in speed increase between ABs and MWDs. Its really binary and that, as expected, translates in one choice being obviously better than the other in PvP in most situations.

But that's partly another debate about the importance of speed in PvP, and so on... So, thanks for the answers you gave me already, I appreciate it. Smile

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#340 - 2015-05-13 07:34:02 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:

At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.

The current problem is that Meta are so common that T1 never gets used.
No-one is asking for T1 to be better than Meta.

But consider the following module, it does 4 things (doesn't matter what those things are.).
T1: +5% +5% +5% +5% Overall +20%
Meta: +7% +4% +7% +4% Overall +22%
T2: +7% +7% +7% +7% Overall +28%

You now have a situation where T1 modules are a cheap easy fit option for overall performance. Meta modules are for highlighting a specific aspect of the module at the expense of others. And T2 modules are for overall high performance at increased fitting costs.
T1 now has a point beyond simply being used to build T2.
Exact numbers could be tweaked for the overall bonus to land between the two as required, and may even mean Meta would slightly beat T2 in just a single area, but far below T2 in others.


Even changing things so that getting a use-able meta-1 module required a T1 module to be manufactured and consumed would do wonders for entry-level manufacturing.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.