Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I don't understand. How would you fit three medium extenders and a 10mn afterburner on the same hull? Magic?

I said mobility, as in turn around speed. Right now the Jack has the turn around speed of a Crow. This is fine but the maximum velocity that comes with it is too low.
So it would feel great on the Jack to have some of that agility in the other modes and the current maximum agility in propulsion mode.
My Rokh can make a 180° turn quicker than the Jack can and has the same singature radius (532m).

While you believe it is awesome to per-nerf all Caldari ships and better make them auto-explode when they undock, some of us may want to fly with them first and not die upon undocking.

OK so testing tonight was somewhat fruitful with caracal vs jackdaw.

In a fight that ended when we got dropped by a navy exequror

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/MrBenis/jackdaw%20vs%20caracal_zpspt1mm3zc.png

I had him at like 15% structure and 20% shields at the end, with me dipping in to armour a bit here and there to bait him in to frying his guns. I was tanking him quite easily otherwise.

A few things I've noticed: he had 143 charges left. This is ridiculous. I really genuinely believe the MASB should consume larger charges as fuel because storing 200 or 300 of them for a fight is just CRAZY. I was able to fit a total of 17x 800s in my cargo hold. 17x 800 = 15600 cap = 15600/125gj per boost = 124 boosts vs his 200+?

I don't presume that my fit would survive against a cruiser but I'm fairly confident it could kill anything destroyer and under. Provided they aren't running dual MASB and have a cargo of 450m3 with t2 resists.

scramble
ASB
Invuln
Prop
Web
I spy an empty midslot on that jackdaw. Surely he wasn't out of CPU to fit a second web or invuln, was he? I guess he must have been, considering he was using a meta DCU

**** svipuls with 10mn AB. full rack of arty and 10mn ok sure. I thought this **** was dealt with.

Napkin math: 200 * 1.333 * (1 + (1.68 * (1,500,000 / (1,050,000 + 500,000))) = 700 m/s.

AB gonna afterburn. vOv



Okay.

Please log on SiSi and do that, convo me and I show you how good that goes.

Yes the salient point would be 230+ shield boosts on a ship with 70+ resists and a native HP bonus that can fit shield boost implants and boosters. I had an RLML caracal specifically fit to kill this thing and it still turned in to a meat-grinder. This is including using my superior cap pool and double his peak dps and the same sustained DPS. Yea yea yea I get that a 40mil cruiser should probably have problems killing a 50-60mil destroyer thats jacked up on roids but then I got to wonder how we accept that frigates will consistantly kill battleships and battlecruisers who by all accounts should roll around in the corpses of frigates like a kodiak in a pile of weasels.

Yeah I just don't know about that one. Making MASB consume at least cap 100s or something to make them scale more appropriately with regular boosters is just *a* solution that could be put to the table for consideration as I don't want to outright nerf the jackdaw but solve a larger problem with these ASBs in general. Could it be argued that a golem really needs 1200m3 for cap charges if it decides to go XL-ASB and XLSB in combo using 800's and 400's in sync? Maybe it could I guess as a golem suffers different problems than a jackdaw but since I'm getting off track I'll stop there.

Something isn't right when the scalpel you take to a tumour is ineffective at cutting the skin. A cerb might have done the job but then we're talking about a 200mil HAC used against a 50mil T3D and that's definitely a problem when that degree of escalation is what's required and even then I'd argue we can't be sure thanks to other factors including needing RLML just to apply any damage in the first case.

[edit] and maybe that's where it needs to go to stop utterly ridiculous fits like triple XL-ASB fits being so accessible and easy is to make them consume cap 800's instead. It's the XL booster, the largest of it's kind and it is supplementing its running cost with cap charges instead of impacting on the ships own capacitor. So making it consume a cap charge that is a lot larger than the cap cost of a regular booster instead will balance this out. It will not nerf the boosting power of the ship using them but it will hurt their sustainability. Cap 800's are very large and I've seen bait ships with expanded cargo holds to house more charges. So make the XL-ASB consume 800's and allowed to load 9 at time or whatever the question is not a matter of boosting power it's of being able to use a strictly burst tanking module and keep this running longer than cap-dependant systems.

Down to the MASB, a t2 MSB consumes 60gj per charge, less 2% per level of shield compensation. 54gj per shot. This means that it is literally more cap effective to run the MASB over the MSB at base stats. Even at level 5s. So the MASB provides almost 50% more boosting power over an MSB for functionally less cost and lower fitting costs. Now I can handle the lower fitting costs but I can't handle the idea that a module which uses expendable charges to compensate for not using the ships own power source not only bolts on easier but is cheaper to run too.

LASB vs LSB - we see the pattern going the other way, with LASB being slightly overcosted but in single digit percentages. T2 LSB uses 160 less 10% for 144 gj per shot while the LASB uses 150's and is cheaper to fit.

XLASB and XLSB - same cap cost, t2 LSB has higher fittings.

Ancillary shield boosters I just don't understand. They've always been considered a problem and they've either been too good for what they are or have been treated as garbage modules not worth fitting. It's just crazy. Did at any time anyone consider balancing these things through their activation costs instead of their boosting stats? Balancing this way does create an absolute ceiling at where they'll operate because links don't scale as well on them and using lows and rigs to make more cargo space or using friends to drop off charges is a game that's very risky as well due to how it could be intercepted.

I am not credulous enough to believe that a dedicated frigate/destroyer hunter should be unable to kill a frigate/destroyer with a weapon designed for fighting frigates/destroyers on a frigate/destroyer killing platform because said frigate/destroyer can "approximately tank my burst".

That's called broken. There needs to be a natural order to things and this is not it. A ship one size catagory up than you using the appropriate weapon should be able to MURDER you. Permatanking my caracal is a complete joke and when I killed that cerb was even worse.

Which is why people celebrate in the gaming community how balanced EVE pvp is and how incredible all the ships are.

I was being facetious btw.

I didn't really mean anything I just said. Because it was lying.

What jackdaw fit? The one I haven't posted anywhere yet?

and what can be done about it? I struggle to think of anything that's not just a gimmick or a hamfisted attack on 'a given playstyle'.

Imagine getting a missile rig that reduces reload speed by 10%? It might be all it takes in these situations to break the back of barely holding on active tanks. I need to stress again that I had him in to very deep structure and stood a fair chance of killing him but as you can see he still dealt 41k damage to me compared to my own 27k to him.

Is the jackdaw supposed to be the anti-missile user ship or something? Isn't that what every speedtanking ship since the dawn of time has been?