|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
230
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 14:38:13 -
[1] - Quote
Cosmos items being T2 with better cap usage and fitting, +elebentybillion
Speed increases on MWD's -1
No overall speed increase for the AB class which desperately needs it -1.
Please make another pass AB is basically only useful for oversizing or for missioning. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 15:10:15 -
[2] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:elitatwo wrote:Please, keep the names at 1, 10 and 100 propmod. The new 5, 50, 500 propmod convention will confuse more than help.
Afterburners need a little more pfffsshhhhh
From the office and or deadspace spiral downward I propose the x-type give you +200-225% speed and from there is goes down in 10% increments or so. You can boat around your market search awkardness by just tpying in the desired amounts of zeros before the MN, like 00MN for BS. On the other hand gameplay changes increased the effects of sigtanking, currently you can tank a RLM orthrus in an AB astero for extended periods of time (without exile or even links), arguably sick. Now go with some more FOTM and you suddenly got a 10mn astero making 4.0km/s cold with a 25m sig, and a few bombers with polarized torps making 3km/s cold with a 35m sig. Right now they aren'T that fast, but an AB velocity increase would clearly push them over the top. Bombers are already overpowered and need a nerfbat regardless of the propmod thing. Also did you know the polarized torps have no range drawback (why did I say ROF? Posting sleepy) like polarized turrets have? Food for thought. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 15:11:58 -
[3] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:Hakaari Inkuran wrote:[quote=Lloyd Roses][quote=elitatwo] Bombers are already overpowered and need a nerfbat regardless of the propmod thing. Also did you know the polarized torps have no rate of fire drawback like polarized turrets? Food for thought.
because they do not have a damage multiplier feature like guns do.... No it was my mistake.
But turrets have 2 drawbacks and torps have one. They both have equivalent damage per second bonuses (either through multiplier or rate of fire). |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
231
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 15:30:23 -
[4] - Quote
Players almost exclusively just say 'microwarpdrive' or 'afterburner' when discussing propmods. They will do the same when talking to newbies. For a newbie, this clearly communicates 2 classes to them that are easy to distinguish by the relative speeds they get out of the mods. A 1mn vs 5mn name difference is not required for newbies and it is not required for established players. Its awkward and not used verbally or when typing in chat. It just muddies the waters. In fact, the flavor names that separate the class number distinguisher XMN from the "micro" or "afterburner" also contributes to confusion. The most important parts of the name is the XMN and the final word of the name. This is bad. The less middle-text there is, the more clear the name will be for newbies.
Therefore, more flavor text is bad unless CCP figures out good SUFFIXES to put after 'Afterburner' or 'microwarpdrive'. I think the chance of that is low. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:18:13 -
[5] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:CCP.. what's the deal with the changes to the X-Type 1(5)00mn Microwarpdrives?
Specifically, at the moment, Core-X has the easiest Fitting costs. Gist-X uses the least Cap. Both have 0 Cap Penalty. After the change, if I'm reading the spreadsheet right.. Core-X will use the least PG, and have the lowest Activation Cost. Gist-X will now use more Cap (Currently 270, changing to 320), and all it gets out of that is a Signature reduction, which on BS's is not nearly as important as a on Frigs and Cruisers.
In short, Gist X went from the best X-Type where Fitting is not an issue, to the worst regardless of fitting, except in a very few specific cases where you want to Sig-Tank a MWD BS.. which is just silly on the outset. Seems kinda messed up. Gist has to have the same bonus types at all sizes. Core has to have the same bonus types for all sizes. One is easier for shield fits and one is easier for armor fits. |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 18:24:47 -
[6] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.
Not asking for T1 to be better than meta, but for there to be meaningful choices when it comes to selecting your modules. This is an example that i drew up from another thread. 5MN Microwarpdrive I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%] 5MN Compact Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1 ; Powergrid 14 (-1); CPU 21 (-4); Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%] 5MN Enduring Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 35 (-10); Cap Penalty -25 ; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%] 5MN Restrained Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -20(-5); Signature Bonus 450%(-50); Velocity Bonus 500%; Overload Bonus 50%] (New Concept Item) 5MN Upgraded Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 15; CPU 25; Activation 45; Cap Penalty -25; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 505 (+5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 5MN Microwarpdrive II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 17; CPU 25; Activation 50; Cap Penalty -20; Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 510 (+10)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Honestly this is kinda what I was thinking they would do for all T1 mods vs metas. T1 is less than T2 we get that. We like that. Problem is that T1 is so bad compared to even the most common meta or even their T2's that its completely pointless. T1 = basic Meta = the basic with specializations. T2 = better but with higher skill and fitting requirements Who cares? When is the last time you strapped t1 to anything? If ccp wants t1 to be used when its strictly inferior to meta then thats their faulty logic and the onus is on them. Just go about your business using cheap meta or t2 |
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
249
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 19:08:40 -
[7] - Quote
Altrue wrote: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. Mwds are already the defacto only choice outside of pve, niche oversize prop fits, and sansha ships. Why would you think they need any help? |
|
|
|