These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#341 - 2015-05-13 09:56:44 UTC
As a follow-up to my previous post, maybe the issue isn't actually the AB speed, but rather the lack of an intermediate choice between ABs and MWDs...

What about 2/20/200MN ABs?...

+ 250% Speed increase
+ 50% Sig Radius Increase
+ Double the mass increase of the other prop mods of the same size.
+ Higher Cap Use than ABs.

I feel like there is room for either turning current ABs into this version, or making a new class of afterburners.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

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

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#342 - 2015-05-13 10:04:57 UTC
Altrue wrote:
As a follow-up to my previous post, maybe the issue isn't actually the AB speed, but rather the lack of an intermediate choice between ABs and MWDs...

What about 2/20/200MN ABs?...

+ 250% Speed increase
+ 50% Sig Radius Increase
+ Double the mass increase of the other prop mods of the same size.
+ Higher Cap Use than ABs.

I feel like there is room for either turning current ABs into this version, or making a new class of afterburners.


the reason why you feel like normal afterburners aren't very good is probably because webs are too strong, and turrets at range are free from having to think about tracking, which leads to afterburners not really doing their job. I think fixing damage mitigation would be a better idea than making silly new things.
Rek Seven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#343 - 2015-05-13 11:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
T2 mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#344 - 2015-05-13 19:00:36 UTC
are you going to nerf my 100MN MWD Prophecy? :(
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#345 - 2015-05-13 19:29:57 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
T2 prop mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.


They are. Smile

ALL HAIL THE NEW KING 5/50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive!
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#346 - 2015-05-14 21:17:55 UTC
Overall I like the balance pass. The one issue I still have is with the changes to activation cost. I view activation cost much like a fitting cost it affects how long I can use other modules simultaneously. I typically use, and own several, Gistum 10MN MWD on my cruisers. Suddenly my cap life is going down.

Quote:

Gallente based mods (Shadow Serpentis, Federation Navy & Core) in general have higher CPU Usage (tf) and lower Activation Cost (GJ)
Minmatar based mods (Domination, Republic Fleet & Gist) in general have higher Powergrid Usage (MW) and lower Signature Radius Bonus (%)

So in order to to make the Gallente based mods have better comparative activation cost the Minmitar mods are getting what seems the shorter end of the rebalance stick.

Corelum C-Type 50MN Microwarpdrive Deadspace 10 (-1) 150 58 160 (-20) -7 (+1) 450 (+17) 514 (+14) 50
Gistum C-Type 50MN Microwarpdrive Deadspace 10 (-1) 173 (-7) 50 180 (+30) -7 (+1) 430 (-14) 514 (+14) 50

Looking at the changes with the C-Type 50MN mod:


  • The Gistum gains 7 Power grid, but it was already being fit, so marginal benefit to current owners.

  • CPU stays the same for both.

  • Activation cost for the Gistum increased from 150 to 180, +30 or a 20% increase in activation cost. The Corelum reduced activation
  • from 180 to 160, -20 or ~11% relative reduction.

  • They both gain +1% cap capacity and 14% speed boost..

  • Gistum reduces 444 sig bloom down to 430, -14% ~3.25% benefit to sig radius. While the Corelum goes from 433 to 450. +17 ~4% relative increase.


I understand you built it wrong before and are fixing it to be in line with proper lore and design. It is just frustrating to see this happen. I see it is a fairly even swap of stats, but it in essence has flipped half the fitting stats of the module and thus anyone that used it with cap use in mind might be a little disappointed.

I guess am not asking for you to change anything, since I understand why you are doing it. I just am not happy about it since I tend to use lower activation modules currently, and I will have to either switch or decide if I like the smaller signature instead.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Please continue.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#347 - 2015-05-14 21:23:03 UTC
I feel like the signature penalty decrease is too large a tradeoff for the extremely large increase in cap usage. As said, it's like a 3% benefit to signature radius for a 20% increase in cap usage, which seems a bit overly harsh.

I would like to see a polish pass after this change if it is as bad as I think it will be in terms of how much people change their fits and how badly it could go.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#348 - 2015-05-14 21:30:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Terra Chrall
Rek Seven wrote:
T2 mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.

Many T2 items are straight up better with marginally higher fitting costs. But Prop mods seem to get a double hit with fitting and with activation cost. They get 10% more PG and 10% more activation.

Look at Adaptive Invulnerability Fields, the T2 has 10% more CPU fitting but less activation cost.
Engergy Neuts have higher PG, same CPU, same activation cost.
Armor and shield reps get same activation cost but have higher fittings for both PG and CPU.

It seems T2 prop mods are one of the few to get an activation increase for its technological advancements.

Edit: ECM are similar to prop mods, they have increased activation and fitting. Only difference is the meta 4 is equal stats so no one uses T2 if they can avoid it.

I do wish that T2 were more attractive overall. Removing the increase to activation would be enough for me to like it more.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#349 - 2015-05-15 08:51:24 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
As always, feedback is welcome & encouraged.

Like the changes.

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#350 - 2015-05-15 11:50:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's

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

Arla Sarain
#351 - 2015-05-15 13:26:18 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty

No its not.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#352 - 2015-05-15 13:34:02 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty

No its not.


oh.. i'm so convinced now P

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

Phaade
Proioxis Assault Force
Rogue Caldari Union
#353 - 2015-05-15 13:34:03 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


Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous...
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#354 - 2015-05-15 14:39:00 UTC
Phaade 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


Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous...

'So unanimous'
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#355 - 2015-05-15 15:01:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
Rowells wrote:
Phaade 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


Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous...

'So unanimous'


indeed, also nerfing web strength is needed with the AB buff.

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

Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#356 - 2015-05-15 15:02:04 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.

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.


This is why you are still in BNI. So let me explain with some simple math. The below formula is abbreviated for clarity. The formula in its entirety is available here.

In the case of missiles when a velocity damage reduction is applied, applied damage = raw damage * (signature radius / explosion radius * explosion velocity / velocity).

Increasing just your velocity will decrease applied damage by 50% of its previous amount. But if you also increase your signature radius by a like amount, you will not see any change in applied damage. A similar effect happens to turrets, though the exact formula is different and non-linear.

Thus, afterburners are more desirable for applied damage reduction than MWD. MWD has other advantages. This is also what makes MWD sigRad bloom reduction bonuses on AFs and HACs, and AB velocity bonus on Sansha ships so useful.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#357 - 2015-05-15 15:42:33 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's


Harvey, that will make HAC's so broken that there is no reason to fly something else.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

CCP Larrikin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#358 - 2015-05-15 15:43:16 UTC
Terra Chrall wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
T2 mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.

Many T2 items are straight up better with marginally higher fitting costs. But Prop mods seem to get a double hit with fitting and with activation cost. They get 10% more PG and 10% more activation.

Look at Adaptive Invulnerability Fields, the T2 has 10% more CPU fitting but less activation cost.
Engergy Neuts have higher PG, same CPU, same activation cost.
Armor and shield reps get same activation cost but have higher fittings for both PG and CPU.


Yeah, your points are not without merrit. We're going to see how the usage of T2 MWD's changes. I wouldn't be surprised if we make some tweaks Smile

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
CCP Larrikin wrote:
As always, feedback is welcome & encouraged.

Like the changes.

\o/

Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's

Whats your reasoning for this?

Phaade 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


Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous...

Hi Phaade, are you talking about AB speed or MWD speed?

Harvey James wrote:
indeed, also nerfing web strength is needed with the AB buff.

Could you expand a little more on this? Have you checked the differences in AB speeds?



Also these changes should be up on Sisi early next week.

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#359 - 2015-05-15 16:06:07 UTC
i meant an AB speed buff is needed and a web strength nerf alongside it would be great and overdue, 60% or 90% make AB's pretty useless as it stands, a combination of weakening web strength and a AB speed buff would make using AB's worth it on anything above a frigate.

on mwd sig penalty, i think increasing sig by a factor of 500% is too excessive, it makes too many small/medium ships too easy too kill, especially destroyers, would be a nice sentry nerf by proxy too.

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

Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#360 - 2015-05-15 16:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty and this is a good opportunity too reduce that penalty . go with

- 300% as base on all mwds
- 250% on restrained mwd's

Whats your reasoning for this?

Do not change this. Keep it at 500%. The 500% sig bloom is designed to make up for the fact that the ship is going 500% faster. This means that the ship doesn't benefit from the speed increase when it comes to tracking according to the turret tracking formula and missile tracking formula.

Edit: It would also be cool if webs were effective proportionally to the size of the ship. Say a web applies X force to slow a ship down. That X force is going to be more effective on smaller ships, and less effective on larger ships. Just a cool idea for when webs are rebalanced.