Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:17:52 -
[331] - Quote
Altrue wrote: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. Let me tell you about Armor HACs...Sig tanking still works pretty good in PVP =) An Atron getting shot at by a light missile Kestrel, takes about 40% less damage if he's ABing instead of MWDing, excluding any webs/painters/fleet bonuses/etc.
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.
Probably not this patch, Sorry.
Harvey James wrote:also no reply too making an agility based meta for AB or mwd .. even at a faction level at least.. Also not this patch. I think its a cool idea though, but I would want to do a bunch of testing to make sure it doesn't break something.
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Onslaughtor wrote:Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse? Why does CCP keep dancing around this question? Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured? You are talking about Meta 0 "1MN Afterburner I" right? We want a clear progression from T1 > Meta > T2.
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.
Core (Gallente / Serpentis) have higher CPU Usage (tf) fitting requirements and lower Activation Cost (GJ). Gist (Minmatar / Angel) have higher Powergrid Usage (MW) fitting requirements and lower Signature Radius Bonus (%). The original Core/Gist bonuses where a little misaligned from the lore, we took this opportunity to fix that.
|
|
Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy Caldari State
247
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:18:13 -
[332] - 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. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1746
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:24:17 -
[333] - 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
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3231
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 22:54:26 -
[334] - Quote
Any chance you can mark out what has changed between your original proposal and the update?
I didn't memorise the OP and spreadsheets first time around, I'm afraid!
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2848
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:03:58 -
[335] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Onslaughtor wrote:Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse? Why does CCP keep dancing around this question? Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured? You are talking about Meta 0 "1MN Afterburner I" right? We want a clear progression from T1 > Meta > T2. That clear progression is making Meta 0 modules in a state of useless though, and unless you are going to nerf the crap out of meta drops this will continue. According to eve central there are about 74000 limited 1mn afterburners available averaging 9k isk selling and 3700 isk buying. There are 64000 meta 0 1mn afterburners available averaging 14300 isk selling and 11k isk buying.
This trend will continue as meta modules are only governed by the number of players killing rats that can drop the modules, where as meta 0 have to be manufactured giving them a clear cost.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
70
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:30:02 -
[336] - Quote
Altrue wrote: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 . Hah, sorry. TBH I wasn't sure if you where trolling or not
Altrue wrote: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. Yes, the agility is horrible on over-sized prop mod fits, but many ships don't require agility (missile & drone doctrines, for example, don't need to worry about tracking). Otherwise, just turn your prop mod off, align/shoot/whatever & only turn it back on when you feel the need for speed.
Altrue wrote: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. Not unless all you ever want to see in your space killing your doodz is that "really strong fit".
Altrue wrote: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. Sure, and we have. The ridiculously low agility is one of the tools we use to limit their impact.
But more importantly, whats the argument for increasing the speed of afterburners? ABs where never ment to compete with MWDs in terms of speed. They provide interesting fitting choices with many trade-offs :
- Lower activation cost
- No capacitor penalty
- No signature penalty
- Easier fitting requirements
- Don't turn off when Warp Scrambled
And yes, slower.
Signature tanking is super effective. A RLML Cerberus will do half as much damage to a fleet bonused 1MN AB frigate compared to 5MN MWD frigate. A large part of the effectiveness of Proteus & Legion fleets you see flying around Nullsec is due to the AB they have fit diminishing incoming damage. Dual prop (or even triple prop fits) can be incredibly powerful, combining speed & signature tanking. And yes, over-fitting is another interesting choice. Getting back a chunk of the speed but loosing agility.
Generally, we think afterburners are in a pretty good spot right now.
Scatim Helicon wrote:Any chance you can mark out what has changed between your original proposal and the update?
I didn't memorise the OP and spreadsheets first time around, I'm afraid! Most of the changes are in the Deadspace mods, with a tweek or two in the faction mods. If I have time tomorrow at work I'll try and highlight the changes from version 1.
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Onslaughtor wrote:Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse? Why does CCP keep dancing around this question? Are T1 modules just a necessary evil in there eyes, only to exist so that t2 modules can be manufactured? You are talking about Meta 0 "1MN Afterburner I" right? We want a clear progression from T1 > Meta > T2. That clear progression is making Meta 0 modules in a state of useless though, and unless you are going to nerf the crap out of meta drops this will continue. According to eve central there are about 74000 limited 1mn afterburners available averaging 9k isk selling and 3700 isk buying. There are 64000 meta 0 1mn afterburners available averaging 14300 isk selling and 11k isk buying. This trend will continue as meta modules are only governed by the number of players killing rats that can drop the modules, where as meta 0 have to be manufactured giving them a clear cost. At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2152
|
Posted - 2015.05.12 23:49:22 -
[337] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.
The current problem is that Meta are so common that T1 never gets used. No-one is asking for T1 to be better than Meta.
But consider the following module, it does 4 things (doesn't matter what those things are.). T1: +5% +5% +5% +5% Overall +20% Meta: +7% +4% +7% +4% Overall +22% T2: +7% +7% +7% +7% Overall +28%
You now have a situation where T1 modules are a cheap easy fit option for overall performance. Meta modules are for highlighting a specific aspect of the module at the expense of others. And T2 modules are for overall high performance at increased fitting costs. T1 now has a point beyond simply being used to build T2. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2848
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 01:01:28 -
[338] - Quote
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%]
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1747
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 05:59:12 -
[339] - 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
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3231
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 07:34:02 -
[340] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: At this stage we are not intending on making T1 modules better than meta modules, and by extension T2.
The current problem is that Meta are so common that T1 never gets used. No-one is asking for T1 to be better than Meta. But consider the following module, it does 4 things (doesn't matter what those things are.). T1: +5% +5% +5% +5% Overall +20% Meta: +7% +4% +7% +4% Overall +22% T2: +7% +7% +7% +7% Overall +28% You now have a situation where T1 modules are a cheap easy fit option for overall performance. Meta modules are for highlighting a specific aspect of the module at the expense of others. And T2 modules are for overall high performance at increased fitting costs. T1 now has a point beyond simply being used to build T2. Exact numbers could be tweaked for the overall bonus to land between the two as required, and may even mean Meta would slightly beat T2 in just a single area, but far below T2 in others.
Even changing things so that getting a use-able meta-1 module required a T1 module to be manufactured and consumed would do wonders for entry-level manufacturing.
Post on the Eve-o forums with a Goonswarm Federation character that drinking bleach is bad for you, and 20 forum warriors will hospitalise themselves trying to prove you wrong.
|
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1748
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 09:56:44 -
[341] - 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
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1074
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 10:04:57 -
[342] - Quote
Altrue wrote: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.
the reason why you feel like normal afterburners aren't very good is probably because webs are too strong, and turrets at range are free from having to think about tracking, which leads to afterburners not really doing their job. I think fixing damage mitigation would be a better idea than making silly new things. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Low-Class
1974
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 11:31:12 -
[343] - Quote
T2 prop mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.
+1
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
37
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:00:36 -
[344] - Quote
are you going to nerf my 100MN MWD Prophecy? :( |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University Amarr Empire
581
|
Posted - 2015.05.13 19:29:57 -
[345] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:T2 prop mwd's are still really **** considering their fitting requirements.
They are.
ALL HAIL THE NEW KING 5/50MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive!
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:17:55 -
[346] - 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. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
671
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:23:03 -
[347] - Quote
I feel like the signature penalty decrease is too large a tradeoff for the extremely large increase in cap usage. As said, it's like a 3% benefit to signature radius for a 20% increase in cap usage, which seems a bit overly harsh.
I would like to see a polish pass after this change if it is as bad as I think it will be in terms of how much people change their fits and how badly it could go.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2015.05.14 21:30:51 -
[348] - 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. |
Arthur Aihaken
Jormungand Corporation
4446
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 08:51:24 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:As always, feedback is welcome & encouraged. Like the changes.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1161
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 11:50:57 -
[350] - Quote
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
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
|
Arla Sarain
446
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 13:26:18 -
[351] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty No its not. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1161
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 13:34:02 -
[352] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Harvey James wrote:i think 500% sig bloom is too high a penalty No its not.
oh.. i'm so convinced now
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Phaade
Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF
346
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 13:34:03 -
[353] - 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.
Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous... |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2410
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 14:39:00 -
[354] - Quote
Phaade wrote: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. Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous... 'So unanimous' |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1161
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:01:39 -
[355] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Phaade wrote: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. Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous... 'So unanimous'
indeed, also nerfing web strength is needed with the AB buff.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1276
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:02:04 -
[356] - Quote
Altrue wrote: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.
This is why you are still in BNI. So let me explain with some simple math. The below formula is abbreviated for clarity. The formula in its entirety is available here.
In the case of missiles when a velocity damage reduction is applied, applied damage = raw damage * (signature radius / explosion radius * explosion velocity / velocity).
Increasing just your velocity will decrease applied damage by 50% of its previous amount. But if you also increase your signature radius by a like amount, you will not see any change in applied damage. A similar effect happens to turrets, though the exact formula is different and non-linear.
Thus, afterburners are more desirable for applied damage reduction than MWD. MWD has other advantages. This is also what makes MWD sigRad bloom reduction bonuses on AFs and HACs, and AB velocity bonus on Sansha ships so useful.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
670
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:42:33 -
[357] - Quote
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
Harvey, that will make HAC's so broken that there is no reason to fly something else.
Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
75
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 15:43:16 -
[358] - Quote
Terra Chrall wrote: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.
Yeah, your points are not without merrit. We're going to see how the usage of T2 MWD's changes. I wouldn't be surprised if we make some tweaks
Arthur Aihaken wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:As always, feedback is welcome & encouraged. Like the changes. \o/
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?
Phaade wrote: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. Cool, so just completely disregard community feedback. Well done CCP, especially when it is so unanimous... Hi Phaade, are you talking about AB speed or MWD speed?
Harvey James wrote:indeed, also nerfing web strength is needed with the AB buff. Could you expand a little more on this? Have you checked the differences in AB speeds?
Also these changes should be up on Sisi early next week.
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1161
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:06:07 -
[359] - Quote
i meant an AB speed buff is needed and a web strength nerf alongside it would be great and overdue, 60% or 90% make AB's pretty useless as it stands, a combination of weakening web strength and a AB speed buff would make using AB's worth it on anything above a frigate.
on mwd sig penalty, i think increasing sig by a factor of 500% is too excessive, it makes too many small/medium ships too easy too kill, especially destroyers, would be a nice sentry nerf by proxy too.
Tech 3's need to be multi-role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
|
Aliventi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
854
|
Posted - 2015.05.15 16:08:02 -
[360] - 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? 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.
Edit: It would also be cool if webs were effective proportionally to the size of the ship. Say a web applies X force to slow a ship down. That X force is going to be more effective on smaller ships, and less effective on larger ships. Just a cool idea for when webs are rebalanced. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |