Ships & Modules

I dislike the idea of making Cap Batteries give a % of cap that can't be touched even more than the chance to reflect the Neut/Nos.

A % resistance to drain amount might not be bad if it's matched with scale of mod to ship and stacking penalties.

Anyone have more info on the Nos buff (or rather reversal of the heavy nerf it received a few years back)?

QFT

Keeping o portion of the capacitor immune from nuets would be very noob AND frigate friendly. Imagine a hero rifter that an't have it's propulsion mod or warp scrambler turned off via nuets.

I see the possibility of alot more dead Hurricanes and Cynabals. There is nothing wrong with that at all. And didn't you just indicate you'd prefer nuet resistance/ immunity to chance based mechanics?

Why not just give them a multiplication modifier on your current base cap amount that should more then make up for the horrible fitting requirements and should improve nuet resistance and cap regen in line with the fitting reqs just cap the totals at ranges for the intended ship class so they wont work well on caps though a large battery on a carrier or dread should probably be equivalent to 1/4 to 1/2 SMC allowing more fitting options with rigs just stack nerf the hell out of them and if they are removed - the cap they give as a % of total cap from the new unfitted total to prevent abuse via other carrier hangers

Dosnt seem to hard

ive been flying curses and pilgrims my whole eve life, and to think that on occasion a neut will be reflected back doesnt seem to bother me, when it does get reflected i dont think it would do much since it costs so much less cap to activate the neut compared to how much it actually neuts

but that said i do agree in the fact that curse/pilgrim are getting screwed over again when other recons are still dominant in their respectable fields

i do miss the good old days when nos was awesome and curses/pilgrims just owned, but looking back i guess it was somewhat op :P

When do we get to talk about the upcoming Curse, Bhaal, etc buff?

I mean, anyone who actually paid attention to the new module info knows that cap battery changes are a precursor to buffing NOS/Nuet buffs.

I have chewed the cud on this one over night. I will side with the "percent chance is idiotic" crowd

CCP Soundwave said he wants to shake up the way modules work, so that the 'doctrine' fits of yesteryear and today get shaken up. This is all well and good, but this proposed shake-up for cap batteries is stupid, clunky, and impractical.

Looking at the way ships in EVE are constructed, they have shield, armour, hull, capacitor as their basic attributes. For each of these four physical attributes every ship gets a base amount, and they have base resistances - except of course capacitor. Shield and capacitor work in a similar way, in that they are actively regenerating attributes based on energy; hull and armour are passive based on physical matter and hence can't regenerate.

For modules, for each of the four base attributes of the ship, you have a class of modules which do the following things
1) adds to the raw HP of the attribute (shield extenders, plates, cap batteries; hull version missing
2) adds a percentage of HP (shield version missing; regenerative membranes; bulkheads; PDU's
3) Confers a resistance modifier, and is both both active and passive (eg; Invuls, EANMs, DCU, capacitor version missing
4) actively ads to the attribute (hull and armour repairers, shield boosters, cap boosters
5) adds to the passive regeneration of the attribute (CPR's, SPR's; armour and hull versions missing for obvious reasons)

Because capacitor is vital to the operation of every ship except the brick drake, there are special modules which exist to attack the capacitor of an enemy ship. One concrn with introducing a reflection chance to neuts with a capacitor battery is that this is unprecedented in the context of all other forms of weaponry aside, perhaps, from defender missiles (luls, them). The thing is, this is just a random thing that happens passively to attack/defend and is a side effect of having a module which is funtionally identical to a shield extender. It makes no sense

Being pedantic here, the capactior booster acts more as a capacitor battery, in that consumables (even with a battery-like icon!) are expended to add short term bursts of energy to the ship. Like, you know, using batteries. So, if CCP wants to revamp things, just rename capacitor boosters to capacitor batteries, and rename the capacitor battery to capacitor extenders. This would solve the mental problem I have of figuring out what the hell and how the hell the capacitor battery is supposed to function; yes, extending your capacitor (like adding LSE's) increases your nett regenration of your capacitor, and acts as extra armour vs capacitor warfare. But really, they should be lowslot modules and should be rebalanced

Lets take, for instance, a Cyclone, level 5 skills. Base is 2730Gj capacitor, which is kind of equivalent to 1/2 of the base shield hp of 5490. Also note that cap and shield hp regeneration rates are similar. A LSEII gives 2650 shield, but a large cap battery gives 700 Gj - which is nearly 1/4 of the LSEII. LSE costs 165MW and 46Tf and the large cap battery costs 275MW and 100Tf.

So, firstly, regardless of any other considerations, the large cap battery actually needs to give more capacitor for its cost in powergrid and CPU. Right now, it is 1/6th as effective a way of increasing your battle performance by armouring against capacitor warfare as the LSE equivalent. Armour, a bit trickier to compare as its low-slot tanking. Also, the LSE adds raw HP which take advantage of the resistances in the shield, which generally the average pilot also buffs the performance of, whereas you have no resistance in the capacitor

So, if CCP wants to shake things up a bit, where to from here with the cap batteries? Clearly, the first step in addressing cap warfare measure/countermeasure balance is to actually provide countermeasures which are viable; part of the solution is of course cap boosters which allow you to actively tank against neuts. Right now, there's no buffer against neuts that is actually viable.

Would making the large T2 cap battery (ie; T2 LCB) give 1400Gj capacitor, for a cost of about 160MW and 50Tf unbalance the game? Not neccessarily. We may see the odd neuting geddon fitting 2 T2 LCB's, MWD, point, as a way of providing a pool of energy to feed its neuts. We may see Maels with large shield booster / T2LCB / CPR / CCC combos permatanking missions like gods - not that they can't do this anyway. We may see T2 LCB Ishtar fits perma MWDing about like clowns, or LCB-fit Cynabals and other such malarkey. But just as likely we will see people fitting a T2 LCB to a battlecruiser such as a Brutix or a Drake to armour against neuting

This will do more to address any staleness in the current application and doctrines of capacitor warfare, aside from providing energy draining missiles or other crazy shiz.

Secondly, maybe CCP should look at the idea of a module to provide a resistance vs neuting. There are two low-slot capacitor modules; the capacitor power relay and capacitor flux coil. No one ever uses cap flux coils on anything because they gimp your max capacitor which negates their benefit of increased recharge rate (seriously, its stupid); perhaps replace these with a module that hardens the capacitor against neuting by 20%. You will doubtless see these deployed ubiquitously on capitals and Amarr PVP ships which are afraid of neuts.

Yeah, they whole game mechanic of bouncing back a neut is kindof stupid.... what is it really accomplishing?

Why don't have just reduce the amount of cap effected a bit. It would serve the same purpose.

yk

You could give cap batteries a 100% chance to reflect neuts and I still wouldn't fit a cap battery over a cap injector. It would just lead to people specifically fitting a ship that would wreck a curse.

It's a bad idea. I don't think it'll ever make it to sisi let alone TQ.

Now can we please get back to nerfing ecm and boosting damps?