EVE Search - Limit Prop Mod application

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Limit Prop Mod application

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 494	Posted - 2015.03.30 23:36:13 - [1] - Quote Something I think is high time to have happen with all the BS that's been going on in the kite meta is to limit AB and MWD to respective weight classes. Noncombat haulers and mining boats would function as they do currently. -1mn ab and mwd apply to frigs and destroyer-sized ships only -10mn ab and mwd apply to cruisers and battlecruiser-sized ships only -100mn ab and mwd apply to battleship-sized ships only. A tweak that might also help mitigate the fallout from this somewhat is with the coming prop mod tiercide, increase the base thrust/speed of t2 and faction prop mods to offset it somewhat. Have Deadspace mods focus more on sig reduction and cap conservation, and have faction/storyline focus on comfortable fitting and performance. No more 10mn ab destroyers, or 100mn cruisers. Bring sig tanking and mobility back to a sane place, please.
Lugh Crow-Slave 960	Posted - 2015.03.31 00:12:21 - [2] - Quote -1 this just limits fitting choices over sized prop mods are not much of an issue do to their high fitting costs the ship generally needs to make major fitting sacrifices perhaps with the exception of the tengue but those have been broken and the T3 rebalance will hopefully fix this Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 106	Posted - 2015.03.31 00:53:36 - [3] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Something I think is high time to have happen with all the BS that's been going on in the kite meta is to limit AB and MWD to respective weight classes. Noncombat haulers and mining boats would function as they do currently. -1mn ab and mwd apply to frigs and destroyer-sized ships only -10mn ab and mwd apply to cruisers and battlecruiser-sized ships only -100mn ab and mwd apply to battleship-sized ships only. A tweak that might also help mitigate the fallout from this somewhat is with the coming prop mod tiercide, increase the base thrust/speed of t2 and faction prop mods to offset it somewhat. Have Deadspace mods focus more on sig reduction and cap conservation, and have faction/storyline focus on comfortable fitting and performance. No more 10mn ab destroyers, or 100mn cruisers. Bring sig tanking and mobility back to a sane place, please. No, it's nerfing the options of fittings. Diversity = Win
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 596	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:15:09 - [4] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: -1 this just limits fitting choices over sized prop mods are not much of an issue do to their high fitting costs the ship generally needs to make major fitting sacrifices perhaps with the exception of the tengue but those have been broken and the T3 rebalance will hopefully fix this In theory yes. In application....some ships are showing ACR (II necessary) and MAPC are showing gimping in one are pays off in spades in others. Eve is changing here. Too many fitting mods is bad is no longer an eve law of sorts. Will ACR and MAPC get you a bigger prop mod? Yes. With benefits better than ye old faitthful polycarb and nano? Yep. We can argue agility if you want. Lots of oversized lots rely on range to pick apart based on range control what the attac its not just tengu. Or even t3d (since prom got shut down I will gather this is the non redundant spin off since its all encpomassing). I have worms now with uber lights I can slap on 10mn with relative ease. Only thing to screw up in this is losing point really (bad piloting and dcking up the orit) or hitting a target fast enough to close and lock me down if not neut me to crap (piloting error once again). Drones track for themselves, missiles don't track at all....full burn till she busts and see what shakes basically. Basically its pirate and t3 (d or c). And if ccp follows their usual path here...the recent t3 adjustments will be a stop gap (weak one at that) till they get back to it soon(tm). You are hoping on a pipe dream. Remember blops? CCP even dangled ideas like new split class ones. Then in the interim to give them some love boosted jump range to show they cared and give a small bone to appease us. And then, now years later, not a damn thing else in terms of rebalance. Blops got a bandaid, ccp put them on a bus and said we will call you when we are ready for you. Then they teased with jump fatigue...okay you get less. Cool it got some love....but its not the love wanted or needed (for those of who don't fly redeemers at any rate). years this has been. CCP does small tweaks, they call it good for now then **** just rots. Noctis has been the only exception. Several tweaks to make it go from THE suck...to just suck. imo we'd have been better off without it to get blops up 1 spot in the waiting list sooner. OP has this right (hell I have been preaching it for a while). This needs to go really. Not even a hater...I love my 10mn frigs. Fast speed, max navi and cap skills for longer more efficient burns....
Lugh Crow-Slave 964	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:36:49 - [5] - Quote there are ships that may need to lose the ability to fit over sized mods yes or perhaps penalize them for using however simply saying that they cant just limits the sandbox Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
thatonepersone Son's of Plunder The Marmite Collective 15	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:47:50 - [6] - Quote There's already a thread for this. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=272809&find=unread -1 nothings broken, so there's no need to try and fix anything. Fitting an oversized prop mod uses a lot of pg limiting the rest of the fit. Try using webs or long rang weapons. I know for a fact both can work.
Leto Aramaus Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop 92	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:54:56 - [7] - Quote thatonepersone wrote: There's already a thread for this. Fitting an oversized prop mod uses a lot of pg limiting the rest of the fit. Not on the Svipul it doesn't. The UI update we deserve
Lugh Crow-Slave 965	Posted - 2015.03.31 02:03:42 - [8] - Quote Leto Aramaus wrote: thatonepersone wrote: There's already a thread for this. Fitting an oversized prop mod uses a lot of pg limiting the rest of the fit. Not on the Svipul it doesn't. the hell it doesn't Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
thatonepersone Son's of Plunder The Marmite Collective 15	Posted - 2015.03.31 02:10:24 - [9] - Quote Leto Aramaus wrote: thatonepersone wrote: There's already a thread for this. Fitting an oversized prop mod uses a lot of pg limiting the rest of the fit. Not on the Svipul it doesn't. So your saying a 10mn svipul doesn't have any less tank, dps or utility than a 10mn svipul?
Lienzo Amanuensis 63	Posted - 2015.03.31 02:14:08 - [10] - Quote I agree with this absolutely. Prop mods are just one aspect, and frigates with cruiser-sized tanks are an even bigger problem. If appropriate sized mods aren't getting the job done, then there is a big problem with those modules. The constant blurring of lines doesn't lead to diversity, but instead to homogeneity. It isn't the ships that must be diverse, but the fleet roles. Usage of the ships themselves will follow that. It's the systems that have the highest utility, or application to the widest range of circumstances, which cause the most blurring of lines. Likewise, just because there may be a counter to them doesn't imply that it has equal utility. A big part of the problem is the constant reliance on percentage multipliers, especially those with no stacking penalties. If frigate or cruiser hulls are dying to the wrong weapon systems in either small scale conflicts or large ones, then address that directly. At present, fitting rigs don't even have drawbacks. None! De nada! If we are to presume that the hulls are already carefully fitting balanced around damage and tank selection, then increasing fitting options by huge margins puts the lie to that. That people go to oversize modules in droves just illustrates how extreme their utility is. If we can't see reductions in the efficacy of fitting modules, especially stacked fitting modules, then we need to increase the fitting gaps between the different platforms. People will disagree with you mainly because they are contrarians, but also because they are afraid to lose advantages that they perceive to be applicable to themselves, even if they affect everyone across the board. Penalties in the form of mass increases do exist, but oversize MWDs, unusual though they have been traditionally, do not come with additional signature penalties over their appropriate size counterparts. While tweaking these under the hood aspects or cap usage might create less furor, it remains much simpler to simply scale back the fitting modules and let the chips fall where they will. If some hulls or modules need base stat tweaking after that, then do it after the players do the testing. It's completely fine to stir the pot and create a little chaos here and there.
Lugh Crow-Slave 966	Posted - 2015.03.31 02:40:03 - [11] - Quote what are you talking about with over sized tank mods because SBs you are supposed to be able to fit over sized same with plats that is intended Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 48	Posted - 2015.03.31 02:46:16 - [12] - Quote I honestly like the idea fitting oversized mods as an option, I actually wish the PG disparity between mods sizes were incremental instead of exponential. so you could have tank, speed and damage all in your class or have one over class, one in class, and one under class. I see nothing wrong with oversized prop mods as they come with slews of drawbacks.
Lienzo Amanuensis 63	Posted - 2015.03.31 03:53:18 - [13] - Quote Tusker Crazinski wrote: [Fitting rigs] take rig slots, a ship that needs 3 ACRs is going to have a much worse tank than a ship with double extender / trimark and resist plug. The brokenness of stacked buffer rigs is a subject for a different thread, so I'll ignore it. The only cost of fitting rigs is an opportunity cost. However, that cost is becomes pretty narrow if it is only between the one or two other viable alternatives. If we look at, say, an atron, we can see the the gap between the lightest and heaviest fitting armamentum (of blasters) is a 225% difference. If we compare them with base PG, the difference is 23% vs. 52% of base PG. If we add fitting modules, limiting ourselves to only T2, then we see a 285% increase in PG. The comparative tradeoff in armamentum becomes only 8% vs. 18% opportunity cost. All the rest can be dedicated to various forms of tanking, speed or otherwise, generally with very little sacrifice required in terms of damage application or amount. If we consider damage application modules as the cost opportunity, we would again have to note that those at least are properly stacking penalized. One appropriate drawback for PG rigs should be increased PG requirements of all highslot weapon modules, and likewise for CPU modules, or decreases in other ship stats such as capacitor, regeneration, or require a trade of stats. If included with stacking penalties, one could ameliorate the severity of impact of the other. If nothing else, we should all be able to accept that stacking penalties at least contribute to fitting diversity.
Lugh Crow-Slave 966	Posted - 2015.03.31 04:02:49 - [14] - Quote yes to increase total PG you should have to require more PG..... Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Lienzo Amanuensis 63	Posted - 2015.03.31 04:49:50 - [15] - Quote That would at least be a more brief discussion.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 692	Posted - 2015.03.31 05:56:33 - [16] - Quote So basically what you carebears want is eve where everyone can avoid being in pvp forever with the nerfs of wardecs awoxing ganking and just about everything else as well. BUT If someone somehow manages to agree to pvp they aren't allowed to run away? They should stay immobile and get shot by you? Go to hell. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Lugh Crow-Slave 969	Posted - 2015.03.31 06:08:00 - [17] - Quote Lienzo wrote: That would at least be a more brief discussion. well at least your points aren't simply "grr it killed me once" Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Lugh Crow-Slave 970	Posted - 2015.03.31 06:59:12 - [18] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: So basically what you carebears want is eve where everyone can avoid being in pvp forever with the nerfs of wardecs awoxing ganking and just about everything else as well. BUT If someone somehow manages to agree to pvp they aren't allowed to run away? They should stay immobile and get shot by you? Go to hell. the main problem is not their abuility to run away but the fact that once they spool up they become extremely hard to hit at all Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 993	Posted - 2015.03.31 08:28:19 - [19] - Quote Arya Regnar wrote: So basically what you carebears want is eve where everyone can avoid being in pvp forever with the nerfs of wardecs awoxing ganking and just about everything else as well. BUT If someone somehow manages to agree to pvp they aren't allowed to run away? They should stay immobile and get shot by you? Go to hell. Calls people "carebears" Has clearly NEVER shot at a 10mn AB T3 destroyer, EVER. Hint: It has the sig between that of a hobgoblin (with links) and an interceptor (no links) with no prop mod running but the confessor does nearly 2km/s (>4km/s if it decides to gtfo of dodge) which wont stop with a scram. Oh and LOTS of DPS to boot. __________________ There is not a general issue with oversized mods, certain hulls just take them far too far. Besides, I like my 100mn stabber.
Lugh Crow-Slave 971	Posted - 2015.03.31 08:42:50 - [20] - Quote afkalt wrote: Go to hell. Calls people "carebears" Has clearly NEVER shot at a 10mn AB T3 destroyer, EVER. Hint: It has the sig between that of a hobgoblin (with links) and an interceptor (no links) with no prop mod running but the confessor does nearly 2km/s (>4km/s if it decides to gtfo of dodge) which wont stop with a scram. Oh and LOTS of DPS to boot. __________________ There is not a general issue with oversized mods, certain hulls just take them far too far. Besides, I like my 100mn stabber.[/quote] they can't kick out to much DPS with the prop mod fit the svip can get a bit more than the confessor but neither are terribly high with 10mn fits they are hard to hit yes but with proper piloting (assuming your not using missiles) they generally cant take a hit if you land one and a smashing blow will generally pop them in one go Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 159	Posted - 2015.03.31 08:55:18 - [21] - Quote this is horrible, its like demanding that only vanilla ice cream is going to be the only option? What if i want sweets and chocolate sauce on mine? -1 for limiting the sandbox
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 993	Posted - 2015.03.31 08:59:53 - [22] - Quote Well over 300 with beams, room for web & AAR on top of >5k ehp which given the damage mitigation is a lot. Same with pulses if you're so inclined but more damage and better tanking. Ed: the caldari one will be the worst offender though, it's going to be stupid.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 495	Posted - 2015.03.31 09:55:48 - [23] - Quote Here's my 2 cents after seeing some replies here: Yes, there are big drawbacks to fitting oversized ab, especially in regards to pg and agility. The issue is specifically sig radius vs speed though. Part of the reason a sig bloom bonus EXISTS on the mwd is specifically to offset the MASSIVE bonuses speed and mobility give you on the battlefield by increasing your sig radius to allow you to actually be hit by something. Pretty basic stuff. However, despite the drawbacks to fitting oversized ab, people do it, and do it quite handily to game the system. You don't have ANY penalties with sig and your capacitor is comparably manageable, which makes any ship that uses them not only hard to hit, but nearly impossible to hold down since there's nothing that turns the prop mod off, only slows it down. Getting multiple webs on a target is the only viable option apart from having a few decent snipers on field, and unless you've got the right equipment on field, you're not pinning down that destroyer or 100mn phantasm that blazes space tracks at over 4km/s. Sure it's fun, but it's a VERY low-risk and frankly obnoxious way to play since it's basically thumbing its nose at the few and far between options for countering the kite meta. So yeah, lock them into it. It'll mean that you can get the AB and MWD you would normally be able to fit have room to be balanced properly, and not fear the current ones getting the nerf hammer due to this ONE particular exploit. It won't be the end of the world considering how much this problem is confined to destroyers and Sansha ships, and I believe most of us would feel a lot better off with a nerf like this instead of having to make blood sacrifices in small gang to the D3 gods, or see them and other ships that exploit this particular mechanic nerfed into the ground to compensate.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 993	Posted - 2015.03.31 09:59:06 - [24] - Quote 100mn phantasm turns like an oil tanker though. The problem is definitely specific to hulls, let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 495	Posted - 2015.03.31 10:06:03 - [25] - Quote afkalt wrote: 100mn phantasm turns like an oil tanker though. The problem is definitely specific to hulls, let's not toss the baby out with the bathwater. My point exactly. Any future balance or nerf that'll come around as a result of this abuse will end up hurting the ships themselves, and continue to refuse to address the issue. What I'm TRYING to do is present an option, albeit a hard one to swallow, that negates that from ever happening. While d3s need a nerf, t1 dessies sure as hell don't. Removing 10mn from the equation from them would likely help out quite a bit towards keeping them from marginalizing other frigates and destroyers as dramatically as they have.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 495	Posted - 2015.03.31 10:08:23 - [26] - Quote Janeway84 wrote: this is horrible, its like demanding that only vanilla ice cream is going to be the only option? What if i want sweets and chocolate sauce on mine? -1 for limiting the sandbox Would you have made the same argument back in the days of multiple prop mod activation? Machs screaming along at 40km/s is a posterchild of broken game mechanics, but the same type of BS has existed with oversized AB; it just hasn't come up to the surface as much until the pirate faction ship rebal and the introduction of d3s.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 495	Posted - 2015.03.31 10:15:20 - [27] - Quote Ok, here's an alternate proposal to outright banning them from size usage...why not simply double the powergrid usage of 10m and 100mn afterburners? They'd be easier to fit than mwd, and it'd solve the problem with them being exploited on ships smaller than their intended fitting.
Lugh Crow-Slave 974	Posted - 2015.03.31 10:30:45 - [28] - Quote Catherine Laartii wrote: Ok, here's an alternate proposal to outright banning them from size usage...why not simply double the powergrid usage of 10m and 100mn afterburners? They'd be easier to fit than mwd, and it'd solve the problem with them being exploited on ships smaller than their intended fitting. but now you are hurting cruiser and BS fits some of which cut it close with less than 1PG left over as is afkalt wrote: Ed: the caldari one will be the worst offender though, it's going to be stupid. how so we don't know the PG/CPU of it and we do know it will be the slowest if anything it will be the gal one if it can fit a 10mn since the gal will not only have sig to mitigate but also over 79% resists in hull across the board Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 994	Posted - 2015.03.31 10:53:54 - [29] - Quote Missiles being able to ignore your own speeds and relative movement is the problem. Or will be. Almost anything small can go so fast it can't track or be tracked - except missile hulls and the existing ones aren't that DPSy
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 48	Posted - 2015.03.31 12:56:24 - [30] - Quote Lienzo wrote: [quote=Tusker Crazinski] One appropriate drawback for PG rigs should be increased PG requirements of all highslot weapon modules, and likewise for CPU modules, or decreases in other ship stats such as capacitor, regeneration, or require a trade of stats. If included with stacking penalties, one could ameliorate the severity of impact of the other. ahh pointing out the ONLY way to fit arty to any minmatar ship requires 1-2 ACRs.... some can't do it with 3. this would literally delete howitzers. I mean yeah RCUs work, however they leave you with no CPU.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.