Player Features and Ideas Discussion

It's a rig that offers the same percentage reduction (20%) in the capacitor cost of weapons that don't cost as much capacitor. The Energy Discharge Elutriation rig also reduces laser capacitor cost by 20%. The imbalance is that when you're removing 20% of a smaller amount, you're removing a smaller amount. Laser weapons cost nearly three times as much capacitor on average over hybrids.

The HDE is fundamentally inferior to the EDE even in the case of the laser ship having a skill-based 50% reduction in the cost of laser weapons, and in fact is so far inferior that even a ship using eight railguns with a rate of fire bonus will still gain more capacitor every time by fitting a capacitor control circuit rig instead of the HDE, and the CCC doesn't have a drawback like the HDE which causes the hybrid turrets to cost more powergrid.


I propose the Hybrid Discharge Elutriation I rig grant a 40% reduction in hybrid turret activation cost, and the tech II a 50% reduction. Anything less is insulting.

That's not how EVE math works. 3 of these modules (tech I) would reduce the capacitor cost of hybrid turrets by 78.4%, three tech II (which can't be fit) would reduce it by 87.5%.

edit: adjusted the numbers after I realized stacking penalties do not apply in this case

It's meaningless to some people. I included about three ways of saying it because apparently some people find it a difficult concept to grasp.

I put some emphasis in though.

I don't think there is ever a situation in which a HDE is better than a CCC. In order to even get more capacitor from the HDE, the guns have to cost almost all of the ships base capacitor regen. Consider the hybrid ship with the greatest cap cost relative to its base cap regen: the Rokh. With 425mm railguns (tech II) and max skills, the ship produces 20 Gj/s at peak cap regen, and spends 18.3 Gj/s while firing the weapons. With poor capacitor skills, the cost of firing can actually go past the peak cap recharge, and the margin can be increased even further by fitting a MWD. But in the scenario above, the ship generates 1.7 Gj/s over the cap cost of the weapons. With a HDE it generates 5.4 Gj/s while with a CCC it generates 5.2 Gj/s. Now while in extreme circumstances such as someone actually flying a battleship with the hybrid rate of fire skill trained higher than either capacitor skill AND fitting a MWD, yes, that first HDE will do more for you than that first CCC. But each HDE afterward will grant less of a bonus, while each CCC will compound on each other or with other capacitor modules you may have fit. And that's not to mention that the HDE increases the powergrid cost of the weapons.

So in summary, one HDE will sometimes (almost never, really) give you slightly more capacitor than one CCC IF AND ONLY IF you have no other capacitor bonuses on the ship. And that's assuming you're running the guns at all times you're having capacitor issues.



To compare with the EDE, which is a useful module, lets use the Rokh's cap-hungry laser counterpart, the Abaddon, with Tachyon beam lasers (tech II) and max skills:

With no rigs:
Base cap balance: +21.3 // -50.7
Net cap balance: -29.4


With 1x tech I EDE:
Base cap balance: +21.3 // -40.5
Net cap balance: -19.2
Net change: +10.2


With 1x tech I CCC:
Base cap balance: +25.0 // -50.7
Net cap balance: -25.7
Net change: +3.7


In this semi-extreme case, the EDE gives nearly three times as much cap as the CCC. Now it's only when the weapons are firing, but this is also with max skills (including capacitor skills, which make a huge difference), and we haven't fit a MWD. Now ships that use fewer turrets like the Nightmare and Paladin, or ships that have a capacitor cost reduction like the Navy Armageddon and the Harbinger, aren't going to have as much use for the EDE. However even the Navy Armageddon can easily find use for the EDE even with max skills.

It looks like T2 Neutron fit Taloses and Nagas both benefit from the HDE more than the CCC. It's a marginal improvement: only two/three percent more stable.

That tiny benefit doesn't outweigh the flexibility of a CCC.

qft....

I'm just relying on what Osmium is telling me while at work. I threw 3x T2 MFS on everything because those are considered standard.

That's my issue with these useless rigs, the global affecting rigs are always stronger, same goes for liquid cooled electronics, powergrid subroutine maximizers, algid administration units and basically every local "decrease x" ever except for egress port rigs but even that only because of cap injection and energy transfer multipliers.

CCP seriously need to buff some rigs so they have

I mean come on?!

Liquid Cooled Electronics and Powergrid Subroutine Maximizers are completely useless rigs as the modules they assist cost almost no CPU anyway. Nobody would use these rigs even if they reduced the CPU costs of those modules by 100%. I've got replacements for them that'll be popular: a rig to reduce the CPU cost of everything that goes in mid slots, and another rig to reduce the powergrid cost of everything that goes in low slots. They will shine primarily on fits that use shield boosters or armor repairers, but they'll be helpful also for shield hardeners or armor plates.


Algid Administrations Unit reduces CPU cost of either laser or hybrid turrets by 10% and increases powergrid cost by 5-10%. It's pretty useless because both of those and especially lasers are huge powergrid hogs and nobody is all that bent about their CPU costs. Also, 10% for 10% is terrible, especially when there are 10% CPU and powergrid rigs with no drawbacks. Projectile and missile rigs do not include anything to adjust their CPU costs, however missile rigs increase CPU cost instead of powergrid cost.

I think the Algid Administrations Units should reduce the powergrid cost of lasers, hybrids, or projectile turrets by 20% while increasing their CPU cost by 5-10%. Then there should be a similar rig for launchers to decrease their CPU cost by 20% with the drawback of increasing their powergrid cost by 5-10%.

Another set of rigs to adjust is the Locus Coordinator (+15% optimal) and the Ambit Extension (+15% falloff). Different weapon types have different ratios of optimal to falloff.
Lasers are almost all optimal, so if their ambit extension was to be even slightly useful, it needs to boost falloff by at least 30% and even then it's only useful in those few cases in which you already have a lot more falloff than usual for lasers, such as when fitting several tracking enhancers. I don't think even 40% falloff would be too much.
Hybrids are mostly optimal, so 30% falloff for ambit extension is very reasonable and would not be even slightly overpowered. It'll be more useful than optimal for several blaster fits.
Projectile weapons vary a lot between artillery (about half and half) and autocannons (almost all falloff). The locus coordinator for those should give 30% optimal, then it'll be great for artillery but still not good for autocannons in most cases. Autocannons of course will be fine with a 15% ambit extension.
Lastly, rocket fuel cache portion (+15% flight time) and hydraulic bay thrusters (+15% velocity) grant the same amount of range, but the hydraulic bay thrusters is clearly superior. I feel it should have only 12.5% velocity bonus, as that will be about even with, say, a 15% optimal bonus on a weapon that is only mostly optimal but has some falloff, too. Then the flight time rig can give 17.5% and it'll grant significantly more range if you're willing to wait longer.

edit: capital turrets have larger amounts of falloff compared to optimal, so that should be taken into consideration and their ambit extensions differ from the subcap variants accordingly.

In MOST cases a CCC is better than anything else cap wise. The CCC has the added bonus, as pointed out, of affecting everything, so you can use it on more fits, or it still works even when 'x' module isn't being used. One of the few cases that I've seen regularly differentiate from this is high energy consumption shield boosters and capacitor safeguard rig.


Though if the T1's are already reducing 78 percent of cap usage, there isn't really any buffing that can be done to those modules. A few added percents isn't likely going to persuade people to change their minds on the CCC vs HDE argument. I know when I'm fitting my blaster boats I'm much more interested in trimarks and collision accelerators.