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

Check My IP Information

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 [?]

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)
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 232	Posted - 2015.05.21 15:02:26 - [391] - Quote Rather than deciding the word order to make searching more convenient, change the market search to be initial substrings of words with any number of words between the search terms. Writing the code to make a regular expression from a search string like this takes less than ten minutes.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 349	Posted - 2015.05.21 16:05:18 - [392] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: This thought came up how to balance ABs relative to MWDs: Increase the Overheat bonus on ABs, decrease it on MWDs. Currently it is a flat 50% for everything. Not a bad idea. I would agree that MWD heat speed increase is kind of crazy, if you overheat the proper cycle and your opponent doesn't there's a good chance you'll catch him.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 349	Posted - 2015.05.21 16:08:06 - [393] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Reality is the Atron will get webbed if the kestrel is ABing, maybe even double webbed to take advantage of furies. The Atron will get kited if the kestrel is MWD fit and lose. In either case the 40% dmg reduction is as superfluous as micro shield extenders. Null hits scram kiters decently well with an atron....but yes the atron will be webbed, so the AB doesn't actually do a whole lot as far as mitigating damage. It does let you close and out dps the crap out of the kestrel though. However If you are flying an MWD atron your purpose is not to brawl with an AB target anyway, it's to chase down would be kiters.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 678	Posted - 2015.05.21 16:20:43 - [394] - Quote Phaade wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: This thought came up how to balance ABs relative to MWDs: Increase the Overheat bonus on ABs, decrease it on MWDs. Currently it is a flat 50% for everything. Not a bad idea. I would agree that MWD heat speed increase is kind of crazy, if you overheat the proper cycle and your opponent doesn't there's a good chance you'll catch him. OH bonus is a function of base speed bonus, so MWDs gain far more than ABs from a flat 50%. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Arla Sarain 452	Posted - 2015.05.21 18:24:50 - [395] - Quote Phaade wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Reality is the Atron will get webbed if the kestrel is ABing, maybe even double webbed to take advantage of furies. The Atron will get kited if the kestrel is MWD fit and lose. In either case the 40% dmg reduction is as superfluous as micro shield extenders. Null hits scram kiters decently well with an atron....but yes the atron will be webbed, so the AB doesn't actually do a whole lot as far as mitigating damage. It does let you close and out dps the crap out of the kestrel though. However If you are flying an MWD atron your purpose is not to brawl with an AB target anyway, it's to chase down would be kiters. I was trying to bring to attention that, any ABing Atron being hit by light missiles already lost, reduced damage or not, because light missiles imply range which in its own flavor implies kite and speed. Hence damage reduction from AB is a moot point. If the parallel is drawn to logi ships and such, all that is managed by putting more DPS on the target. Again, ABs are silly outside of dual prop fits. Should MWDs surpass AB speed at some cost - sure. Should it be 2.5 times faster though? Seems absolutely arbitrary that MWDs are faster than ABs to a point where the latter has almost no tactical options in a fight. Why is such segregation "intended". In practice rock,paper, scissors only inspires seasonal FOTMs and not actual "balance".
Dimitrios Bekas Brave Operations - Lollipop Division Brave Collective 7	Posted - 2015.05.23 09:27:10 - [396] - Quote PLEASE !!! CCP PLEASE !!! Make all Names automatically change after the UPDATE....IN ALL saved fittings or quickbar links. Its a pain in the ass to now change all fittings that pilots have saved because of those ridiculous Namechanges... 5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive ??? 5MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive ??? Why Tags Number holy **** ARGHHHH ! Change the stats, STAY with the names...and ffs have a tool programmed that changes the names at least without having to update Hundreds of fittings again...personal and corp fittings !!!
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 67	Posted - 2015.05.23 17:04:02 - [397] - Quote +1 adding the missing metas to 10mn, 100mn, 50mn and 500mn. Not seen is whether any of the reprocessing materials changes for any of the old-->new items. Am I safe to assume that reprocessing the existing metas under the new system will yield the same outputs?
Gevlon Goblin Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 423	Posted - 2015.05.25 14:23:27 - [398] - Quote Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] These are exact same stats. I think these modules should be merged because they are actually the same item, just under two flavor names. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1175	Posted - 2015.05.25 14:43:37 - [399] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] These are exact same stats. I think these modules should be merged because they are actually the same item, just under two flavor names. or make the fed navy one agility based like their plates are. 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
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 704	Posted - 2015.05.25 15:01:09 - [400] - Quote Gevlon Goblin wrote: Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] These are exact same stats. I think these modules should be merged because they are actually the same item, just under two flavor names. They originate through different means. Has always been so. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]

Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 673	Posted - 2015.05.26 07:05:55 - [401] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Gevlon Goblin wrote: Federation Navy 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 17; Activation 18 (-2); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] These are exact same stats. I think these modules should be merged because they are actually the same item, just under two flavor names. or make the fed navy one agility based like their plates are. Yeah, but you know, that would mean that we would actually have module differentiation that made sense instead of just this system of cleaning up a load of modules from the data base and leaving us with the same old choices we already have now. Choice comes down to this: 1st - T2 Best Bonus (fitting permitted) 2nd - Compact (as it has the best bonus of the meta modules) 3rd - rearrange your fit so that either 1st choice or 2nd choice module can be squeezed in as T1 is awful and "Compact" is superior to everything else. CCP. This module metacide you're doing is failing because you fail to understand how to do it. You're still making it one of two choices when choosing a module. I don't understand why you can't understand how to do this simple task. A method I would employ is to balance each module around a "zero point". Example: Fitting, activation (and drawbacks) minus the bonus = zero. Every 1% speed bonus the module gives is equal to -1 point. Every unit of fitting (CPU/PG) is equal to 3 points. Every unit of activation cost is equal to 2 points. T2 gets a +8 to the zero point Faction gets +12 to the zero point etc etc Use this formula to achieve balance of all the modules. For example 1 MN Afterburner I Speed boost (B)= 125% Activation (A) = 25 PG (P)= 10 CPU (C)=15 So the formula would look like this: ((A2) + (P3) + (C3)) - B = 0 (zero) 50 + 30 + 45 - 125 = 0 1MN Compact Afterburner Speed Bonus = 120% Activation = 27 PG = 9 CPU = 13 1MN Afterburner II Speed Bonus = 135% Activation = 23 PG = 12 CPU = 15 T2 formula applies (((A2) + (P3) + (C3)) - B) + 8 = 0 ((46 + 36 + 45) - 135) + 8 = 0 As you can see, the formula has required me to apply more activation and less speed bonus in order to get lower fitting requirements. The T1 version isn't obsolete by the meta version and the meta version is still a viable option (can even pump the activation up higher to get a speed boost similar to T1) The T2 version gets it's + 8 bonus which allows for a better speed bonus but also at the cost of fitting and activation. Apply this style of balancing to all modules with the T1 version being the base level and ou end up with a balanced system of modules giving unique roles.
brutus elementus Sorry About Your Face Lunch Money Syndicate 9	Posted - 2015.05.26 13:44:02 - [402] - Quote Please no
Marek Melkan Full Spectrum Inc Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2015.05.26 21:24:13 - [403] - Quote I like it. And I like the fancy names. A bit of a change in prop will be fun. It's going to give rise to new fits. I don't see the T2 5nm MWD be any more useful that its predecessor though... :)
Midnight Hope Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 163	Posted - 2015.05.27 03:03:49 - [404] - Quote - 5,50,500: Good change +1 - Y-S8, Cold-Gas, Monopropelant: I can't thank you enough +1 (you still could bring it all the way to Cold-Gas Arcjet Thruster and Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon, but there's still hope) - Meta modules: Compact: Lower fitting requirements -1 Enduring: Lower capacitor usage -1 Restrained: Lower drawbacks -1 OMG, you guys have been watching too much Downtown Abbey? "Enduring" is not used since the 18th century!! Why not "long suffering" ?? Please try to get something with a bit more scifi flavor. I'm sure you can find an engineer or three for ideas: Compact -> Micro/Nano (same functionality, less use of fittings) Enduring -> Low-intake/Efficient/Low-input (same fittings, less resource usage for activation) Restrained -> Enhanced/Optimized/Advanced (if I understood correctly, the item is not actually "restrained", the item is "enhanced" or optimized in such a way thatits drawbacks are reduced or restrained)
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2366	Posted - 2015.05.27 03:53:19 - [405] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: Edit: is it intentional, that the compact MWDs provide aditional speedboost compared to the other meta 1 version (5%)? Hrm, I'm not seeing that? All the Meta 1 MWDs should provide the same speed boost (505%). Can you quote the specific section? Lloyd Roses wrote: I highly do not appreciate the speed creep. Rather keep the current max speed bonus and then have metas with less speed bonus. There is a chance to hit the break a little, pleasepleaseplease. Galphii wrote: I think the current top speeds are fine, perhaps reduce the low end instead of increasing the top end. Flavour names are consistent with other tiericided modules I guess, though I don't think they were necessary either. If you want to keep things simple, adding nonsense text to a module name isn't going to help. Otherwise, things looking good in those numbers. We are going to be watching how the small speed buff affects TQ. We've done a bunch of internal testing and don't expect it to have a large impact on the meta. That said, give us your feedback! There are 4 weeks till release. OK, here's my take on this. Orthrus with Thukker LSE's, Restrained MWD, faction point, HG Haloes and full Gaymore links = what sig, how fast, what point range, and so on. Or a 50MN AB Orthrus with same Thukker LSE's = what sig, speed, oint range, blah blah? Consider the impact of reducing MWD sig penalties PLUS simultaneously reducing shield extender sig penalties. The game is already either a) nanofag meta - stay at range, long range weapons, high speed + links b) sig tanking gorilla on micro triciycle - low sig, AB or even now T3D defensive mode MWD sig tank kiting / 10MN sig tank kiting c) bring uber logistics wing to compensate for lacking one or both of the above So, yeah, please DO have a look at this. Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA ~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Aliastra Cruentatus Zahadu 0	Posted - 2015.05.29 16:31:34 - [406] - Quote omg guys you really need to make up your mind. while back you removed names and made all same name to make it easier. now you returning them. Put more game play stuff in game. Stop ganging in hi sec. FIX GAME!!! updated graphics and playing with mods dont improve game!"!
Mokusui Lazy Brothers Inc 16	Posted - 2015.05.29 17:22:12 - [407] - Quote It is my opinion that you are doing a great thing by adding more character to the module names; you've done good work here. Thank you.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 805	Posted - 2015.05.29 18:33:30 - [408] - Quote Aliastra Cruentatus wrote: omg guys you really need to make up your mind. while back you removed names and made all same name to make it easier. now you returning them. Put more game play stuff in game. Stop ganging in hi sec. FIX GAME!!! updated graphics and playing with mods dont improve game!"! Stopping ganking means killing the spirit of eve. I don't gank, am frequently the target of gank attempts and still say this. Better graphics keep the art department busy, and make the trailers better, so we can get more people in game. The modules getting more sensible (not perfect, but I can see uses for almost every meta module thus far proposed, even if most of the time, it's one meta far above the rest for general utility) is a massive fix to the game play, and probably has the most far-ranging scope of any sort of change, as the same modules are used regardless of space type, particular ship and so on. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Rufelza Widowmakers 10	Posted - 2015.05.30 07:31:30 - [409] - Quote I feel that this is a somewhat needless pass with other moduals needing to be tidied up first, like what is being done with the shield extenders and armour plates. I feel that with these changes you may have lost sight of the original intention. My feeling is that the AB's seem to have all been very much leveled in one respect and balance from that perspective, where are the lower activation cost moduals gone? Only one remains.
Blacktide Bakersmith Astra Holding Company 1	Posted - 2015.06.02 01:30:13 - [410] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: [b]Goals of Module Tiericide Reduce unnecessary complexity Provide meaningful options within the module set "Limited 1MN Afterburner I" become "1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner" "Experimental 1MN Afterburner I" become "1MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner" "Experimental 10MN Afterburner I" become "10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner" "Experimental 100MN Afterburner I" become "100MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner" "Limited 1MN Microwarpdrive I" become "5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive" "Upgraded 1MN Microwarpdrive I" become "5MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive" "Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I" become "50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive" "Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I" become "500MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive" So the goal of these changes are to reduce unnecessary complexity and provide meaningful options within the module set. Pardon me for being confused about this, but which part of the changes specifically reduce the complexity? Speaking for myself here, I'm looking at these changes and thinking, wow, talk about unnecessarily adding to the complexity... The 1, 10, 100 made perfect sense, this, not so much. So congratulations on the total and complete failure of meeting your proposed goals. Any ETA on when we can expect a revist of these systems, to ya know, remove or reduce the uneccesary complexity you are adding in?

Alowishus Parallax Shift The Periphery 3	Posted - 2015.06.02 04:08:59 - [411] - Quote All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this: Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 452	Posted - 2015.06.02 08:01:44 - [412] - Quote Alowishus wrote: All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this: Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds. I Like it. Stupid, but in a fun way and...I like it. "Tomahawks?" "----in' A, right?" "Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each." "----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Shai 'Hulud 193	Posted - 2015.06.02 09:12:32 - [413] - Quote speed creep bad The most useful slaves are those that believe themselves to be free
Aeon Veritas Lobach Inc. Easily Offended 0	Posted - 2015.06.02 09:23:23 - [414] - Quote Hi there, a thing that i already mentioned here is that I think the Meta levels should be applied to the different modules. Like "Compact" = Meta 1, "Restrained" = Meta 2 and so on... this would make it easier to filter the inventar for the different mods. Now they are all Meta 1 and you have to look for the names And if i understand it correctly you don't plan to add more mods between Tech 1 and Tech 2. So why not use the Meta levels that are already there? Further I want to complain that you said: CCP Larrikin wrote: UPDATED 2015-05-12 Changes ... 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 (%) But you only applied this to the MWD. Why didn't we keep it for the AB like it was before? lower activation cost for gallente based and higher speed for minmatar based. CCP Larrikin wrote: Afterburner Raw Stats (Updated 2015-05-12) ... Core X-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 16 (+3); Powergrid 625; CPU 65 (-1); Activation 290 (+49); Velocity Bonus 165 (+6)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gist X-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 16 (+3); Powergrid 813 (+63); CPU 50; Activation 290 (-30); Velocity Bonus 165 (+3)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Now the only difference for the AB are the pricetag and the fitting restrictions. Please fix this... Fly save o7
Fergus Runkle Truth and Reconciliation Council 59	Posted - 2015.06.02 09:37:33 - [415] - Quote Remember the nano nerf ! http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/speed-rebalanced/ Does Destiny not have the problems with ludicrous speed anymore?
Apo Lamperouge 65	Posted - 2015.06.02 11:46:54 - [416] - Quote 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%. A max faction speed fit overheating Garmur goes from 13085 m/s before the changes, to 13140 m/s after. WHuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut? If that's not ugly overpowered I don't know what is. "Does Destiny not have the problems with ludicrous speed anymore?" If there is Ludicrous Speed in the game, there it is. Sometimes a knife right through your heart is exactly what you need.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 722	Posted - 2015.06.02 12:23:55 - [417] - Quote Alowishus wrote: All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this: Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds. The other way around, Afterburners should be providing that kind of bonus for ~some reason~, and in order to proliferate their use in PvP. Reason being that MWDs soap up too much space power, while ABs leave enough spaceship to worp faster. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Alowishus Parallax Shift The Periphery 4	Posted - 2015.06.02 12:35:28 - [418] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Alowishus wrote: All these proposed changes and the related gripes are all well and good, however, I have another idea. Reduce the velocity modifer of MWD by, say 25% across the board, and add this: Fitting 5mn MWD = 5% increase in warp velocity Fitting 50mn MWD = 50% increase in warp velocity Fitting 500mn MWD = 100% increase in warp velocity I just fixed everything, ruined everything and blew all your minds. The other way around, Afterburners should be providing that kind of bonus for ~some reason~, and in order to proliferate their use in PvP. Reason being that MWDs soak up too much space power, while ABs leave enough for spaceship to worp faster. I actually agree with you but my reasoning was that a micro warp drive might help you warp faster. Your logic is sound enough, however. I was being absurd though. CCP has stated that they prefer that 99% of the time you fly a BS you should be aligning/in warp and things are presently working as intended.
W0lf Crendraven Welfcorp 300	Posted - 2015.06.02 13:58:32 - [419] - Quote Well i like it in general, even though that makes everything way way more complex and difficult as before.
Electra Magnetic Old Spice Syndicate Intrepid Crossing 24	Posted - 2015.06.02 14:13:01 - [420] - Quote the name change is garbage and does nothing but confuse the entire community. The speed change to MWD's isnt needed. AB's still need a speed increase. All of these modules should be tied to a ship class so that the oversize fits can stop being abused and exploited. Not really seeing anything beneficial from these changes, just wasted development time.



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

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.