|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
22
   |
Posted - 2015.05.04 18:26:15 -
[1] - Quote
Titus Tallang wrote:Would it be possible to keep the size and the "Afterburner" or "Microwarpdrive" together? It makes buying them easier (you can simply search for "10mn afterburner" and find all of them.
So for example "Cold-Gas Enduring 500MN Microwarpdrive" instead of "500MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive".
No need to rearrange name. Because now all you have type is 10mn and you get all cruiser sized afterburners. You type 50mn and you get all the cruiser sized MWD.
Actually if they keep the change of 5/50/500, which I hope they do, you could remove AB and MWD from the name, as it is implied then. But I guess that could get confusing especially for new players, and we don't want that. But I still like the new numbers.
I have searched the market before using 1mn and bought a MWD when I meant to buy an AB. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 18:34:16 -
[2] - Quote
Masao Kurata wrote:I'm really confused about the cap usage swap between RF/domination and FN/shadow serpentis ABs. There's absolutely nothing going for RF now except a few tf of CPU, why would anyone want to fit one with these stats?
I was thinking along the same lines, the 2 that were less cap consumption are now the high use, and the 2 that were higher cap are less... why swap these around? It seem like it will hurt current owners that bought around the cap consumption. The fitting options are different, one uses more cpu one uses more power. I think CCP should chance a different metric on these modules and not their cap use.
I would rather see a speed difference on the ABs and sig difference on the MWDs instead of reversing the cap consumption. This would allow current owners the same cap and fittings they built their fit around, while still making the modules different. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
22
|
Posted - 2015.05.04 19:44:26 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Afterburner Raw Stats- Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 15 (-5); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 15 (-5); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Republic Fleet 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 11; CPU 15; Activation 20 (+5); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Domination 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 11; CPU 15; Activation 20 (+5); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
As of right now anyone owning a Domination or Republic Fleet 1MN AB are getting +5 (33%) cap use for +1 speed and that is a pretty crappy deal. SO either keep the cap use the same or change the speed bonuses given. I see you want to make the speed bonus the same across meta tier but it is the only other setting that really can set these apart unless you make the fittings lower.
I would rather it look more like:
- Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 7; Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 15 (-5); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta 7); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 15 (-5); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Republic Fleet 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 11; CPU 15; Activation 20 (+5); Velocity Bonus 150(+6)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Domination 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 11; CPU 15; Activation 20 (+5); Velocity Bonus 150(+6)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Coreli C-Type 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 10 (-1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 15; Velocity Bonus 150%; Overload Bonus 50%]
- Gistii C-Type 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 10 (-1); Powergrid 11(-2); CPU 15; Activation 17 (-3); Velocity Bonus 150 (-3)%; Overload Bonus 50%]
Where the C-type is just better in activation for the speed.
It seems you are trying too hard to make things even 5's or 10's like with activation and with speed but are not worried about it with PG and CPU. You might want to rethink that stance so that you can tweak the numbers on these modules where they are different enough in more meaningful ways.. If keeping the speed as the common factor then adjust the Activation and fitting a bit more but not in jumps of 5. Then scale these with the 10/50/100/500 modules as well. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:17:55 -
[4] - Quote
Overall I like the balance pass. The one issue I still have is with the changes to activation cost. I view activation cost much like a fitting cost it affects how long I can use other modules simultaneously. I typically use, and own several, Gistum 10MN MWD on my cruisers. Suddenly my cap life is going down.
Quote:
Gallente based mods (Shadow Serpentis, Federation Navy & Core) in general have higher CPU Usage (tf) and lower Activation Cost (GJ)
Minmatar based mods (Domination, Republic Fleet & Gist) in general have higher Powergrid Usage (MW) and lower Signature Radius Bonus (%)
So in order to to make the Gallente based mods have better comparative activation cost the Minmitar mods are getting what seems the shorter end of the rebalance stick.
Corelum C-Type 50MN MicrowarpdriveDeadspace10 (-1)15058160 (-20)-7 (+1)450 (+17)514 (+14)50
Gistum C-Type 50MN MicrowarpdriveDeadspace10 (-1)173 (-7)50180 (+30)-7 (+1)430 (-14)514 (+14)50
Looking at the changes with the C-Type 50MN mod:
- The Gistum gains 7 Power grid, but it was already being fit, so marginal benefit to current owners.
- CPU stays the same for both.
- Activation cost for the Gistum increased from 150 to 180, +30 or a 20% increase in activation cost. The Corelum reduced activation
from 180 to 160, -20 or ~11% relative reduction.
- They both gain +1% cap capacity and 14% speed boost..
- Gistum reduces 444 sig bloom down to 430, -14% ~3.25% benefit to sig radius. While the Corelum goes from 433 to 450. +17 ~4% relative increase.
I understand you built it wrong before and are fixing it to be in line with proper lore and design. It is just frustrating to see this happen. I see it is a fairly even swap of stats, but it in essence has flipped half the fitting stats of the module and thus anyone that used it with cap use in mind might be a little disappointed.
I guess am not asking for you to change anything, since I understand why you are doing it. I just am not happy about it since I tend to use lower activation modules currently, and I will have to either switch or decide if I like the smaller signature instead.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest. Please continue. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:30:51 -
[5] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:T2 mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.
Many T2 items are straight up better with marginally higher fitting costs. But Prop mods seem to get a double hit with fitting and with activation cost. They get 10% more PG and 10% more activation.
Look at Adaptive Invulnerability Fields, the T2 has 10% more CPU fitting but less activation cost.
Engergy Neuts have higher PG, same CPU, same activation cost.
Armor and shield reps get same activation cost but have higher fittings for both PG and CPU.
It seems T2 prop mods are one of the few to get an activation increase for its technological advancements.
Edit: ECM are similar to prop mods, they have increased activation and fitting. Only difference is the meta 4 is equal stats so no one uses T2 if they can avoid it.
I do wish that T2 were more attractive overall. Removing the increase to activation would be enough for me to like it more. |
|
|
| |
|