EVE Search - [June] Module Teiracide - Afterburners & Microwarpdrives

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[June] Module Teiracide - Afterburners & Microwarpdrives

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 13 post(s)
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1730	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:11:22 - [1] - Quote 5,50,500, good change. The whole "name flavor" stuff, I still don't get it. Enduring mwd, restrained mwd, that's enough for a name. No need to add the whole monopropellant YS-5 bulls*. Same thing for the other names you butchered: Missile launchers, power diags, reactor control units, etc... Signature Tanking Best Tanking** Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1730	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:58:12 - [2] - Quote Yeah, with a server ticking at 1Hz, and blaster ships being able to cover their whole falloff + optimal + optimal + falloff (approaching then overshooting the target) in less than one second, it is quite ridiculous to see speed increase even more. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1744	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:58:57 - [3] - Quote 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 weGÇÖre 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. Yeah, why would you ever pick an option that gives you a fifth of the speed bonus of the other? The only thing I can think of is PvE, where you don't really need to speed, you just need to added avoidance. How ironic, the only case where afterburner are needed is when you don't actually need speed :D As for the oversized "issue"... It is only an "issue" on T3Ds and they have been heavily nerfed already. Every other frigate or dessie has huuuge troubles fitting 10mn ABs. As for 100mn ABs... Have you seen the inertia? I tried a 100MN AB on a Phantasm once. Suffice to say, 35sec alignment didn't really convince me that they were over-powered... Yet we were talking about a ship that has a BONUS to ABs, it wasn't even a random ship with an oversized prop mod. TL;DR: So yeah... I don't really see the point of not making ABs faster, because : A - Their current state is so bad that people who fit them aren't looking for speed. and B - 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. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1746	Posted - 2015.05.12 22:24:17 - [4] - Quote 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 . 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. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1747	Posted - 2015.05.13 05:59:12 - [5] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Lots of good stuff Hey thanks for the extensive answer :) I'm won't say I share all your opinions, but its super cool to have more details on the point of view of the devs on the matter Sorry if you thought that I was trolling. I do agree with you that ABs have other advantages, and they should definitely remain noticeably slower than MWDs. However, I wanted to point out the gap in speed increase between ABs and MWDs. Its really binary and that, as expected, translates in one choice being obviously better than the other in PvP in most situations. But that's partly another debate about the importance of speed in PvP, and so on... So, thanks for the answers you gave me already, I appreciate it. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1748	Posted - 2015.05.13 09:56:44 - [6] - Quote 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 Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1753	Posted - 2015.05.15 18:57:00 - [7] - Quote 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? Lots of ships have a 50% reduction to MWD bloom. Assault Frigates, Interdictors, Heavy Assault Cruisers, some T3 destroyers... It should ring a few bells that maybe there is a need? I mean, if too many ships have the same role bonus, maybe there is an issue with the module they are bonusing. A bit like energy turrets cap use and the fact that half of laser ships have a cap cost bonus. Aliventi wrote: 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. That's kind of incorrect. The mass increase and general rule that in PvP, people don't just fly in straight line at 100% speed, means that the ship is noticeably easier to hit with a MWD on than off. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr

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.