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)

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:42:59 - [1] - Quote Hello Dudetters and Duders, We would love some feedback from the community about the proposed Module Teiracide Afterburner and Microwarpdrive changes. Please give us your feedback! Goals of Module Teiracide Reduce unnecessary complexity Provide meaningful options within the module set Changes Give a speed bonus to higher meta Microwarpdrives Renaming MWDs to 5MN, 50MN and 500MN Bring back some of the old school flavor names (Cold-Gas!) Differentiate Officer mods from Deadspace mods Fix some flavor issues with Faction mods Some Q&A before we get to raw stats Q: When will these changes be on TQ? A: We're planning on the June 2nd release. Q: What are the different meta modules now? A: This - Compact: Lower fitting requirements Enduring: Lower capacitor usage Restrained: Lower drawbacks Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "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" Look at the next two posts for the raw stats.


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:43:35 - [2] - Quote Afterburner Raw Stats 1MN Civilian Afterburner [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 1; CPU 2; Activation 5; Velocity Bonus 60 (+28)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 1MN Afterburner I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 10; CPU 15; Activation 20; Velocity Bonus 115 (+2.5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner (Old module "Limited 1MN Afterburner I") [Meta Level 1 (-1); Powergrid 9 (-1); CPU 13 (-2); Activation 20; Velocity Bonus 125 (+3.5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 1MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner (Old module "Experimental 1MN Afterburner I") [Meta Level 1 (-2); Powergrid 10; CPU 15; Activation 15 (-5); Velocity Bonus 125 (-1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 1MN Afterburner II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 11; CPU 15; Activation 22; Velocity Bonus 135%; Overload Bonus 50%] 1MN Analog Booster Afterburner [Meta Level 6; Powergrid 9; CPU 13; Activation 15 (-1); Velocity Bonus 135 (+13.5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 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%] 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 13; CPU 15; Activation 20; Velocity Bonus 150 (-3)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Coreli B-Type 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 12; Powergrid 10; CPU 18; Activation 15; Velocity Bonus 155 (+2)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gistii B-Type 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 12; Powergrid 13; CPU 15; Activation 20; Velocity Bonus 155 (-1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Coreli A-Type 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 14 (+1); Powergrid 10; CPU 19; Activation 15; Velocity Bonus 160 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gistii A-Type 1MN Afterburner [Meta Level 14 (+1); Powergrid 13; CPU 15; Activation 20; Velocity Bonus 160 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 10MN Afterburner I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 50; CPU 25; Activation 80; Velocity Bonus 115 (+2.5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner (New Module) [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 45; CPU 21; Activation 80; Velocity Bonus 125%; Overload Bonus 50%] 10MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner (Old module "Experimental 10MN Afterburner I") [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 50; CPU 25; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 125 (-1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 10MN Afterburner II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 90 (+2); Velocity Bonus 135%; Overload Bonus 50%] 10MN Analog Booster Afterburner [Meta Level 6; Powergrid 45; CPU 21; Activation 60; Velocity Bonus 135 (+13.5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Federation Navy 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 28; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 28; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 80 (+20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Domination 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 80 (+20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Corelum C-Type 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 10 (-1); Powergrid 50; CPU 29; Activation 60; Velocity Bonus 150%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gistum C-Type 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 10 (-1); Powergrid 63; CPU 25; Activation 80; Velocity Bonus 150 (-3)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Corelum B-Type 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 12; Powergrid 50; CPU 31; Activation 60; Velocity Bonus 155 (+2)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gistum B-Type 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 12; Powergrid 63; CPU 25; Activation 80; Velocity Bonus 155 (-1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Corelum A-Type 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 14 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 32; Activation 60; Velocity Bonus 160 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gistum A-Type 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 14 (+1); Powergrid 63; CPU 25; Activation 80; Velocity Bonus 160 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 100MN Afterburner I [Meta Level 0; Powergrid 625; CPU 50; Activation 320; Velocity Bonus 115 (+2.5)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 100MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner (New Module) [Meta Level 1; Powergrid 563; CPU 43; Activation 320; Velocity Bonus 125%; Overload Bonus 50%] 100MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner (Old module "Experimental 100MN Afterburner I") [Meta Level 1 (-2); Powergrid 625; CPU 50; Activation 250 (-70); Velocity Bonus 125 (-1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] 100MN Afterburner II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 350 (-2); Velocity Bonus 135%; Overload Bonus 50%] 100MN Analog Booster Afterburner [Meta Level 6; Powergrid 563; CPU 43; Activation 250 (-6); Velocity Bonus 135 (+10)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Federation Navy 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 625; CPU 55; Activation 240 (-80); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 625; CPU 55; Activation 240 (-80); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Republic Fleet 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 320 (+79); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Domination 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 320 (+79); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Core C-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 10 (-1); Powergrid 625; CPU 58; Activation 240 (-1); Velocity Bonus 150%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gist C-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 10 (-1); Powergrid 750; CPU 50; Activation 320; Velocity Bonus 150 (-3)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Brynn's Modified 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 11; Powergrid 560 (-65); CPU 52 (-6); Activation 240 (-1); Velocity Bonus 150%; Overload Bonus 60 (+10)%] Mizuro's Modified 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 11; Powergrid 675 (-75); CPU 45 (-5); Activation 320; Velocity Bonus 150 (-3)%; Overload Bonus 60 (+10)%] Core B-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 12; Powergrid 625; CPU 61; Activation 240 (-1); Velocity Bonus 155 (+2)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Gist B-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 12; Powergrid 750; CPU 50; Activation 320; Velocity Bonus 155 (-1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Tuvan's Modified 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 13; Powergrid 560 (-65); CPU 55 (-6); Activation 240 (-1); Velocity Bonus 155%; O...


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:43:41 - [3] - Quote mwds go here

HiddenPorpoise Under Dark Sins of our Fathers 319	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:48:02 - [4] - Quote I think this was meant to be hidden. I don't like the new names but I like the 5mn change.
Nagarythe Tinurandir House of Freedom The Pursuit of Happiness 195	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:54:40 - [5] - Quote wasn't the premise of MWDs, that higher meta only brought less fitting requirements and less cap use? What has changed so that they need to provide bigger speed boosts? Still not a fan of "enduring" n'stuff, but I like the comeback of flavor additives and 5MN might be a good idea as well for obvious QoL reasons. Are the Thrustpower values changed accordingly or is it just a name thing?
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1313	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:56:12 - [6] - Quote The 5, 50, 500. Good change The fluff names a bit much. It doesn't add any relevant information to the module except to confuse people who think cold-gas actually means something. I do like the name cold gas though. Monop..... Whatever is a bit long. Shorter names probably a bit better here. Yaay!!!!
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2820	Posted - 2015.05.04 11:59:46 - [7] - Quote I like the module teiracide project as a whole but I don't like that it has been leaving manufacture-able T1 items in an all but useless state. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Faren Shalni Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 133	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:02:55 - [8] - Quote wall of text o_0 apart from that it looks interesting. will need more time to think on this So Much Space
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 988	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:04:03 - [9] - Quote 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.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1730	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:11:22 - [10] - 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

Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 306	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:17:20 - [11] - Quote 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. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
Fredric Wolf Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team 77	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:18:28 - [12] - Quote I feel compact should have worse stats the meta 0 as you need to have a trade off for easier fitting right now everything is better then meta 0 and there are no benefits to fitting these.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12881	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:28:08 - [13] - Quote Why would you want to change their size naming? 1 for frigates, 10 for cruisers, 100 for battleships, that was simple and easy to remember. Now we'll be fielding questions from newbies about which one for which size ship, since they're different now. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Canenald Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore 65	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:28:17 - [14] - Quote Will t2 MWD finally be useful?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1139	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:31:59 - [15] - Quote not convinced by the name change, they now sound like new afterburners of sizes in-between current ones, don't do it please. republic fleet AB - i think should be the fastest, matches minnie ships being the quickest, maybe add stronger drawback too it like high cap use. AB/mwd's meta's still aren't different enough, pg (-1) isn't much help really on frigs.. it needs a significant chunk off republic fleet mwd's - should have lowest sig of faction mods and high speed but stronger drawback's.. lets have faction mods that represent their factions traits please. still not convinced by Y2 just being the best at everything but fittings.. as mentioned earlier in threads .. the basic mod is pretty useless now, seems too be anti productive to a tiercide role approach. 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

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 13	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:34:32 - [16] - Quote 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.

Gorski Car 567	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:38:27 - [17] - Quote Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion Collect this post
Luk Tsero Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:42:32 - [18] - Quote Quote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. Don't like it. I'll have to do multiple searches in pyfa to try different fits instead of just one :/
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 509	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:54:14 - [19] - Quote I think speed creep is unhealthy for the game and hope you're keeping an eye on this. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 74	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:56:23 - [20] - Quote Quote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. This is going to get very annoying, very fast. You are making people type in two different strings each time they search for a prop mod in EFT or the market. 1 for frigs, 10 for cruisers, 100 for battleships, please keep it that way.

Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12881	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:57:29 - [21] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. This is very much a concern of mine. With the release of T3 destroyers, we're already treading perilously close to the age of nanos, which is bad. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1730	Posted - 2015.05.04 12:58:12 - [22] - 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
l0rd carlos TURN DOWN. The Camel Empire 1204	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:00:15 - [23] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Quote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. This is going to get very annoying, very fast. You are making people type in two different strings each time they search for a prop mod in EFT or the market. 1 for frigs, 10 for cruisers, 100 for battleships, please keep it that way. How often do you need to fit dual prob in EFT or the market? Or how about we make scram and web the same name so you only have to search a single time for that? _____________________ I don't like the speed creep, might be interesting when we remove fleet boosters. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 510	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:05:06 - [24] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hello Dudetters and Duders, We would love some feedback from the community about the proposed Module Tiericide Afterburner and Microwarpdrive changes. Please give us your feedback! Goals of Module Tiericide Reduce unnecessary complexity Provide meaningful options within the module set Changes Give a speed bonus to higher meta Microwarpdrives What's this. Reasonable and much needed changes in my Eve. Quote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. Support +100 // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1139	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:08:28 - [25] - Quote it would be nicer too see AB's get a speed boost rather than mwd's, AB's need some help (nerfing webs would be nice her 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
Bleedingthrough Project AIice 164	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:15:26 - [26] - Quote The absolute speed boni on MDWs (+3.6% for meta 14) are a bit low. Why not go up to 600% total speedbonus? Would be a meaningful difference. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5305080#post5305080
Malakai Asamov Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 33	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:16:45 - [27] - Quote Was this post put through dislyixisia QA?
Inggroth Aurora Ominae. The Gorgon Empire 42	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:20:50 - [28] - Quote Making t2 MWDs better than t1 is p. cool and logical. Naming i dont care, although how would anybody think that this is removing complexity? Speed creep is not cool, please have another look. I'd nerf speeds slightly to be honest.
Charlie Nonoke Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 63	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:21:00 - [29] - Quote The 5, 50, 500 I think is unnecessary. If 1MN of MWD is roughly 5x speed of a 1MN AB. Then naming it 5MN MWD means many many times more than a 1MN AB. Having AB or MWD as a suffix is enough to distinguish the two. Having 5, 50, 500 MN only makes sense, if you name it: 1MN AB and 5MN AB 10MN AB and 50MN AB 100MN AB and 500MN AB The MWD technically is an afterburner afterall.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 990	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:25:31 - [30] - Quote nother thing bugging me: For ABs, Gist ones are faster and require more cap. For mwds, gist ones though require less cap, are equally fast and have a bigger sigbloom. Is that intended or type? Because it doesn't make much sense that the coreli one is better suited for sigtanking compared to an angel mod.

Koz Katral Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 107	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:25:46 - [31] - Quote Are you nerds really whining about the flavor names being to much, after last time when they took them out completely and everyone cried tears of blood? If I worked for CCP I would probably have pictures of players on my wall and throw darts at them.
SpaceSaft Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 150	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:26:54 - [32] - Quote I too like the 1mn mwd to 5mn mwd change. I don't like much else about the naming though. Looks like obfuscating, nonhelpful fluff to me. Could you try saying those names 5 times from memory without messing something up or forgetting words? Because I don't think you can. The UI is still bad.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1639	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:27:49 - [33] - Quote I am a little concerned that the republic fleet afterburners, that were chosen by players for reduced cap use, have had that feature removed. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 510	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:28:46 - [34] - Quote Sweet, sweet Cold-Gas. I think the 2% difference between Deadspace C/B/A versions is not large enough. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1139	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:30:18 - [35] - Quote shouldnt T2 AB/mwd require higher CPU and PG?? rather than just PG especially as the compact reduces both stats.. 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 510	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:30:50 - [36] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: nother thing bugging me: For ABs, Gist ones are faster and require more cap. For mwds, gist ones though require less cap, are equally fast and have a bigger sigbloom. Is that intended or type? Because it doesn't make much sense that the coreli one is better suited for sigtanking compared to an angel mod. This. CCP please give Gistii lesser sig penalty, while differentiating Corelis with more raw % speed in return. VARIETY! (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
SpaceyX Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:34:02 - [37] - Quote Where are the capital propulsion mods?
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1139	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:37:09 - [38] - Quote i was hoping for some agility based roles here, say serpentis and fed navy would have lower mass addition, it makes sense with them being blaster boats, i assume speed would need too be reduced too compensate.. 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
Baron Holbach The Northerners Northern Coalition. 31	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:38:45 - [39] - Quote bit offtopic, but if restoring some old names are topic then - please rename akemon implant back to akemon or add this as extra for this implant name :)
Nagarythe Tinurandir House of Freedom The Pursuit of Happiness 195	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:38:46 - [40] - 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? chrm nevermind.. fell prey to the layout confused it with the signature bloom.

Iris Bravemount Golden Grinding Gears 365	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:39:48 - [41] - Quote I really like the new "compact" options, that have been lacking. The storyline modules have been buffed to compensate the loss of their fitting superiority, so it's fine. However, as has been stated very early on in this post, I recommend that the maximal speed is not increased here. If you want to make higher meta modules faster, that's great, but nerf the lower tier modules instead of buffing the higher tier ones. The very last thing we need is even more speed. "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Lochiel Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind 5	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:41:35 - [42] - Quote How about having the order of the name be nMN [Modifier Name] [Flavor Name] [MWD\|AB] So that when I search for "5MN Restrained" I get exactly the module I was looking for?
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 669	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:42:06 - [43] - Quote I'm currently reading this whilst traveling in a car (as a passenger, don't call the whoop whoop space police) on an iPhone so I haven't read that obscene wall of text. However I'm pleased that module tiercide has made it to the real meaty modules. I was expecting prop miss to get fully fleshed out though. Currently there aren't enough meta modules to fill each potential role. I would have liked to have seen this: Tech one gives x speed boost for y capacitor and z fitting (MWD cap penalty w) Compact gives x+5% speed for y+10% capacitor and z-20% fitting Enduring gives x+5% speed for y-25% capacitor and z+10% fitting Improved gives x+15% speed for y+30% capacitor and z+20% fitting (MWD) Restrained gives x+5% speed for y+5% capacitor z+10%fitting and w-20% Tech two gives x+20% speed for y+15% capacitor and z+20% fitting (MWD w-20%) As you can see, there are substantial benefits and drawbacks to each module giving people actual and meaningful choice. That's just my two cents though Stay Golden =ƒÿÇ
Odeva Pawen Aideron Robotics 35	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:43:00 - [44] - Quote I really don't like seeing the speed boost going even higher. There are already too many too fast ships flying around these days. Also, I thought module tiericide was intended to make the meta versions greater to the meta 0 in one area, and then weaker in other areas. Are you ever going to implement something like that, CCP? Overheat Keyboards! Load Rage posts! Prepare for a long, seething, back and forth about irrelevant things!
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 188	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:46:36 - [45] - Quote That tiny speed increase is nice to see. most of these people don't remember the old 625% mwd's... The names.. too far. Limited 1mn Compression drive Limited 1mn Endurance drive Limited 1mn Reduction drive Experimental 10mn Compression drive Experimental 10mn Endurance drive Experimental 10mn Reduction drive Prototype 100mn Compression drive Prototype 100mn Endurance drive Prototype 100mn Reduction drive is less of a mouthfull
Titus Tallang EVE University Ivy League 78	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:47:03 - [46] - Quote 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". Teaching Director - EVE University - http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/
Lady Spank Get Out Nasty Face 3838	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:47:15 - [47] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. This. Kiting is already the go-to meta. (a¦á_a¦â) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (a¦á_a¦â)
PsychoticSmurf Black Omega Security Goonswarm Federation 12	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:47:26 - [48] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. ... Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "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" thanks for breaking all fittings on wikis/forums etc, also ruining legacy archies, history killmails
Niralos Shooah GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 4	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:47:55 - [49] - Quote Flavor text is an unnecessary gimmick, not to mention AB's and MWD's didn't previously have any. Please don't obfuscate for no reason, or if you do keep it to storyline modules. Restrained/compact/enduring is fine.
Eli Porter Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:48:07 - [50] - Quote The 450% sig radius bloom MWD's are really cool. Might make MWD HAC's more popular.

Serenit Adoulin Sons-of-Liberty Capital Punishment. 33	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:52:04 - [51] - Quote Please try not to mess up the deadspace ballance. Gistum MWDs need more power to fit, more GJ for activation and are slower now compared to other one. Thats not really what I would consider fair. Making other modules usable is good but dont screw it up. After the changes there would be no reason for using angel MWDs
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3221	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:56:20 - [52] - Quote Niralos Shooah wrote: Flavor text is an unnecessary gimmick, not to mention AB's and MWD's didn't previously have any. Please don't obfuscate for no reason, or if you do keep it to storyline modules. Restrained/compact/enduring is fine. Prop mods had flavour text a few years back before they were renamed to the current conventions, this is restoring many of the old names. 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.
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 188	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:58:09 - [53] - Quote Niralos Shooah wrote: Flavor text is an unnecessary gimmick, not to mention AB's and MWD's didn't previously have any. Oh but they did. Many years ago. CCP removed it because they thought it was confusing and needless. That's how we ended up with Limited/Experimental/Prototype prop mods.
HTC NecoSino No Vacancies Lost Alliance 210	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:59:12 - [54] - Quote SpaceyX wrote: Where are the capital propulsion mods? My 175m/s archon approves.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk Soteriophobia The Periphery 209	Posted - 2015.05.04 13:59:15 - [55] - Quote Ships are already too fast. With links and snakes it's trivial to make frigates outspeed anti-frigate weapons like warriors and light missiles. Don't even get me started on ships going 10km/s on s 1Hz server. Please either keep them as is or nerf the weaker MWDs.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3221	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:00:43 - [56] - 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. Um, under this naming format you could just search for the thrust category - querying just "10mn" on the market search would bring up all the Cruiser-sized afterburners. 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.
Eva Peacemaker Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 9	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:01:03 - [57] - Quote Why make the names harder to understand instead of what you've been doing recently that tried to tune down the silly names? 1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner seriously?
PsychoticSmurf Black Omega Security Goonswarm Federation 12	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:04:50 - [58] - Quote because small, medium and large is to complex to understand
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 510	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:10:07 - [59] - Quote SpaceyX wrote: Where are the capital propulsion mods? Just nnoo. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Dave Stark 7476	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:11:56 - [60] - Quote open market window "10mn" half the prop mods don't show up. the 5/50/500MN stuff is bad, don't do it.

Mike Whiite Geuzen Inc 375	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:12:18 - [61] - Quote Don't make them faster, has anyone looked at what it does to missile damage application? that is already sad to same class ships with propmods.
Mystical Might V0LTA Triumvirate. 184	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:13:41 - [62] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. Pretending this doesn't already happen...
Yuri Thorpe Implying Jita Prices 53	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:14:14 - [63] - Quote Can we expect to see officer MWDs being better than deadspace? As it stands now officer is just an expensive deadspace prop...
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3221	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:14:15 - [64] - Quote Is there any particular reason for streamlining bonuses into round percentage increments? Most obviously with the velocity bonuses on afterburners going up in uniform 5% increments and the sig bloom of MWDs dropping by 10% at a time, but in some other areas too, it feels more like a 'make the numbers aesthetically pleasing on the spreadsheet' change rather than anything done for particular balance concerns. It's not really a problem but it seems like un-necessary tweaking for no real gain. 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.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 510	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:17:12 - [65] - Quote Charlie Nonoke wrote: The 5, 50, 500 I think is unnecessary. If 1MN of MWD is roughly 5x speed of a 1MN AB. I think the naming convention is an excellent idea in the OP. The same MegaNewton boosting with five times difference in two separate cases made no sense. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Lucas Padecain Brink's Bar Adirainia 29	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:20:16 - [66] - Quote For the love of Eve, please do not increase top speed. Ships are already fast enough. Also, I don't see any value in adding the fluffy "cold-gas" or whatever in the name. X MN enduring microwarpdrive works just fine.
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 164	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:23:08 - [67] - Quote Capital Size propulsion mods missing If you going to rebalance all the mwd and ab's you might as well add capital sized prop mods. Also the % are barely noticeable between the different variants. I like the 5-50-500 stuff to show size differences.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1139	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:26:08 - [68] - Quote Janeway84 wrote: Capital Size propulsion mods missing If you going to rebalance all the mwd and ab's you might as well add capital sized prop mods. Also the % are barely noticeable between the different variants. I like the 5-50-500 stuff to show size differences. also mass values are missing.. a important attribute for these mods, and misses the opportunity too play with agility not just speed, cap and fitting. 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
Ddolik Viscosity Fidelas Constans 27	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:37:10 - [69] - Quote please, dont buff speed of these modules, its already ridiculus, it seems like 90% players already said that in this topic... more likely nerf all these speed buffs everything going 10km/s
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 230	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:38:13 - [70] - 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.

Krell Kroenen The Devil's Shadow 254	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:40:50 - [71] - Quote Off the cuff, I like the bringing back of some of the old flavor names and the 5/50/500 for MWD's makes sense as well. And while I haven't dug in to the figures as of yet, the concept of different speeds sounds promising and might add some desired variety.
Sentient Blade Crisis Atmosphere 1493	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:42:51 - [72] - Quote I like the 5MN change, hate the other naming choices.
Solecist Project Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD 23443	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:43:01 - [73] - Quote BRING ... I mean ... Bring back the Y-S8 and Y-T8 engines as meta ones! Please! That were awesome names! Thanks! DOES YELLING ANNOY YOU ? LIKE MY IDEA BELOW AND I WILL REMOVE IT !! Corpses4Drifters CLICK THE LINK !! YOU LIKE THE IDEA !! FOR EVEN MORE PLAYER DRIVEN CONTENT !!
FistyMcBumBardier New Caldari Bureau of Investigation 110	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:44:08 - [74] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. Suitonia wrote: I think speed creep is unhealthy for the game and hope you're keeping an eye on this. I think it is as well, but having the option to pay extra for a little bit of extra speed would be nice if they plan on nerfing links Crosses fingers
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 189	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:45:03 - [75] - Quote so some simple math your ship does 200m/s and you get a 500% speed boost, your ship now does 1200m/s your ship does 200m/s and you get a 518% speed boost, your ship now does 1236m/s is that really going to cause that much of an issue??? real ship example... Crow, base speed 637 and speed with mwd 4454 using a 518% and speed is 4762 so using a prop mod that's 4x the value of the ship gives you an extra 300m/s in an interceptor... every day players wont notice much change. only the extreme edge cases will any difference be noticed , ie snake sets with full links and faction nano's with quafe... its not going to change much at all
Mystical Might V0LTA Triumvirate. 184	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:45:23 - [76] - Quote I approve of these changes; people whining about the increases in speed are ignoring the fact that most of these modules will probably climb in price now that there's an actual reason (beyond capacitor) to fit them. Ain't no one fitting these on an incursus or slasher bros, nofear.
Valterra Craven 537	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:53:17 - [77] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Feedback is only important to us when you listen to it and make changes. You guys seriously need to stop with the flavor (cold-gas) names. They are needless, complicate searches, make the names longer than they should be, and just confuse people. Just stop already.
Arla Sarain 416	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:53:24 - [78] - Quote Mystical Might wrote: Ain't no one fitting these on an incursus or slasher bros, nofear. They'll just be fitted on garmurs, worms and drams and T3Ds. Need For Speed Online ABs need a speed boost.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 658	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:56:31 - [79] - Quote 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. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Dag Na'Rok EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2015.05.04 14:59:49 - [80] - Quote Throwing in my 2c: --Nerf speeds rather that buff them, T2 MWD same speed or lower than current limited MWD, everything else lower imo. Speed is an issue especially with offgrid boosts so prevalent -- +1 for the "blah blah blah 50mn microwarpdrive" rather than "50mn blah blah blah microwarpdrive", it just makes sense --Overall I love the idea of the changes, much more interesting fitting decisions between max speed, cap usage and fitting

Richard Masseri Intaki Liberation Front Intaki Prosperity Initiative 24	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:01:20 - [81] - Quote I rather like this it will be a change and I will be confused for awhile but it will be good Just Another Capsuleer-á
ArchAngael SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 17	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:02:19 - [82] - Quote Love the 5/50/500 change. I'm less sold on the names. I would rather see more subtlety. Personally I would rather see a certain flavor tag, like cold-gas, mean something specific across all modules and use that to indicate its role. For example, players could learn that cold-gas on any module means less cap use and anytime you see it, you know it's the cap saver module. You could add something to the Show Info to explain it and serve as a reference if people forget, but it would become one more bit of knowledge that makes you a better Eve player. Recruiter/Director of Supreme Mathematics Take my Eve Online Ship identification quiz at http://fenjaylabs.com/EveShipIdQuiz
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 997	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:04:09 - [83] - Quote 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.
GankYou Redshield Holding Company 240	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:09:54 - [84] - Quote MWDs used to be differentiated by speed boost amount a long time ago. I fully support this change. ...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 231	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:10:15 - [85] - 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.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 190	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:11:03 - [86] - Quote 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....
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 231	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:11:58 - [87] - 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).
Thanatos Marathon Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 443	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:14:22 - [88] - Quote Nice to see these on the block! Could we go for a bottom end reduction in speed instead of a top end increase though? Speed fits are already fast enough imo.
Lilliana Stelles 1376	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:16:32 - [89] - Quote I, for one, am happy with the return of fluff names. I felt like they actually added to the feel of the game. It's still not nearly as bad as KSP. I was hoping to see a more consistent theme across deadspace modules though. (CORE is reduced cap for ABs, and GIST is reduced CPU, but GIST is reduced cap for MWD's.... what)... though I'm not really sure how they'd implement a fix for that. Not a forum alt.-á
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 190	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:16:58 - [90] - Quote God all mighty... we have had 10 years straight of speed nerfs... scorps used to do 22km/s + let ccp buff something for once. let them give people a 0.035% speed buff ITS 0.035% speed buff 0.035% For an A-TYPE MOD!!!


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 24	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:18:18 - [91] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: For ABs, Gist ones are faster and require more cap. For mwds, gist ones though require less cap, are equally fast and have a bigger sigbloom. Is that intended or type? Because it doesn't make much sense that the coreli one is better suited for sigtanking compared to an angel mod. Hrm, good catch I think. Let me relook at this. Serenit Adoulin wrote: Gistum MWDs need more power to fit, more GJ for activation and are slower now compared to other one. Thats not really what I would consider fair. Slower? All modules of the same meta level should have the same speed bonus. Can you provide an example? Yuri Thorpe wrote: Can we expect to see officer MWDs being better than deadspace? As it stands now officer is just an expensive deadspace prop... The Officer modules receive a -10% CPU & Powergrid fitting requirements and a +10% overload speed bonus over the Deadspace mods. ArchAngael wrote: Love the 5/50/500 change. I'm less sold on the names. I would rather see more subtlety. Personally I would rather see a certain flavor tag, like cold-gas, mean something specific across all modules and use that to indicate its role. For example, players could learn that cold-gas on any module means less cap use and anytime you see it, you know it's the cap saver module. You could add something to the Show Info to explain it and serve as a reference if people forget, but it would become one more bit of knowledge that makes you a better Eve player. Thats what the Compact (Lower fitting requirements), Enduring (Lower capacitor usage) & Restrained (Lower drawbacks) parts of the name indicate. If you look at some of the other module groups we've Tiericided, you'll see its consistent. "Cold-Gas" is flavor only.

Bienator II madmen of the skies 3278	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:19:12 - [92] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. i kinda want to see officer fit garmurs. because reasons. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 190	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:21:23 - [93] - Quote Cold gas is fine, but remove the complicated Y-SR do dar crap
Ravcharas Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 400	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:21:25 - [94] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. I guess that depends on personal preference. I usually bring up the market window and enter 1mn, 10mn, or 100mn -- depending on if I'm fitting a frig, cruiser, or bs size hull, respectively. That's almost always quicker than browsing through the folder menu.
Renura Ostus Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:24:24 - [95] - Quote +1 for 5/50/500 mwd names. At least it now clearly understandable in talks is it '1mn svipul', '5mn svipul', '10mn svipul' and I don't have to carefully listen for 'ab'/'mwd' suffix. +1 for meta1 cleanup. As promised, all meta 1 gives the same main bonus - speed and different penalties, fitting, cap usage. And it's better then meta0 and worse then meta5. Thanks for that. Finally t2 mwd is worth to use on interceptor (but restrained variant have better sig/speed ratio. I wonder, how much will it cost) :) Now the last point - those vendor names. I assume that it's a part of our Lore and can't be removed, to not fall into kind of pure mathematical names without any soul. But there is also practical disadvantage - searching. If I want to quickly get "5MN [vendor] Restrained Microwarpdrive", I would like to have ability to enter just '5mn re' in search and get it without needing to remind all those vendor names. So kind of 'fuzzy string search' (like Ctrl-P in Sublime) in market and other places would be great to have with those new names.
MeBiatch GRR GOONS 2068	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:24:37 - [96] - Quote Canenald wrote: Will t2 MWD finally be useful? well lets see: 5MN Microwarpdrive II [Meta Level 5; Powergrid 17; CPU 25; Activation 50; Cap Penalty -20 (-3); Signature Bonus 500%; Velocity Bonus 510 (+10)%; Overload Bonus 50%] yup thats an extra 5% now over all the other tech I metas... so yes tech II will actually be better. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote: Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 511	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:27:05 - [97] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Yuri Thorpe wrote: Can we expect to see officer MWDs being better than deadspace? As it stands now officer is just an expensive deadspace prop... The Officer modules receive [...] a +10% overload speed bonus over the Deadspace mods. Ohhh, you touche my tralala CCP Larrikin. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 231	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:30:23 - [98] - 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.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 339	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:32:01 - [99] - Quote Looks good to me at first glance. Most important, if I'm not mistaken, it will bot break my existing fits this time. I'm my own NPC alt.
Caljiav Ocanon KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 35	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:33:39 - [100] - Quote 1) Ever since I started playing I wondered why AB and MWDs were both scaled as 1/10/100MN when obviously the MWDs are faster. I like the change to 5/50/500 for MWDs as it makes sense. 2) Adding "extra" names to the modules is superfluous even if they sound cool. Long names will just get shortened by the players anyway and in a few years CCP_Someone will want to rename them to "make things easier/simpler/noob friendlier" again. 3) If you are doing all this why not just go ahead and make Cap/SuperCap mods? They all (maybe not all but damn) pack around 100MN MWDs now so might as well make it "official". 4) At least attempt to differentiate officer/deadspace in a meaningful way. 5) Try to keep "power creep" to a minimum on this. One or two percent probably won't make much of a difference depending on how you do things and where you put it but don't just blanket buff everything. This will create more problems than it will fix. ideally I'd like to see a little extra cleverness by CCP here rather than just speed buffs.

BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 984	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:36:12 - [101] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: ArchAngael wrote: Love the 5/50/500 change. I'm less sold on the names. I would rather see more subtlety. Personally I would rather see a certain flavor tag, like cold-gas, mean something specific across all modules and use that to indicate its role. For example, players could learn that cold-gas on any module means less cap use and anytime you see it, you know it's the cap saver module. You could add something to the Show Info to explain it and serve as a reference if people forget, but it would become one more bit of knowledge that makes you a better Eve player. Thats what the Compact (Lower fitting requirements), Enduring (Lower capacitor usage) & Restrained (Lower drawbacks) parts of the name indicate. If you look at some of the other module groups we've Tiericided, you'll see its consistent. "Cold-Gas" is flavor only. The problem arises when you attempt to combine this with flavour names everything becomes too wordy
Nik Domar Acerbus Vindictum The Camel Empire 6	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:36:30 - [102] - Quote I really like most of the changes here, giving reason to fit T2 MWD:s and compact modules bringing alternative to expensive digital/analog storyline prop mods. Those might open some really good new fitting options in fitting oversized prop mods. I know there are some concern over buffing faction and deadspace mwd:s to give more speed, but I would believe in practice change might not be that bad. I did however notice one little thing on new stats Mizuro's Modified 500MN Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 11; Powergrid 1350 (-150); CPU 67 (-7); Activation 270; Cap Penalty -7 (+1); Signature Bonus 440 (-4)%; Velocity Bonus 514 (+14)%; Overload Bonus 60 (+10)%] Current TQ stats give mizuros mwd activation of 255 GJ, is this change intended to make it consume more per cycle?
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 243	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:39:11 - [103] - Quote Restrict propulsion modules from being fit to capital ships. Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
fenistil Space-Brewery-Association Did he say Jump 110	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:48:57 - [104] - Quote I would keep at least one module at meta 3/4. Simple reason: increase chances of invention. Also: 10% increase in activation cost between T1 and T2 for 1% speed increase and terrible fitting penalties: not worth it. Please reconsider the fitting consts and the activation/speed bonus ratios. .
Tyr Dolorem Snuff Box Snuffed Out 46	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:56:12 - [105] - Quote Don't really see the need for swapping around stats on the republic fleet/domination afterburner VS the fed navy/shadow serp. Why not leave the faction meta level that was higher the same?
Deus lmperator Sick That Duck 2	Posted - 2015.05.04 15:58:24 - [106] - Quote no pls no

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 25	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:05:40 - [107] - Quote Nik Domar wrote: I did however notice one little thing on new stats Mizuro's Modified 500MN Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 11; Powergrid 1350 (-150); CPU 67 (-7); Activation 270; Cap Penalty -7 (+1); Signature Bonus 440 (-4)%; Velocity Bonus 514 (+14)%; Overload Bonus 60 (+10)%] Current TQ stats give mizuros mwd activation of 255 GJ, is this change intended to make it consume more per cycle? Yeah, the Mizuro's Modified 500MN Microwarpdrive currently on TQ is an anomaly at 255 GJ. All other officer modules come in at 324 or 270. I suspect it was a typo. We decided to bring it back in line.

elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 659	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:06:05 - [108] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: ...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. eeeek!! Actually I was thinking more in the line of making 1mn ab's more suiting for frigates and 10mn for cruisers and so on. Some of the things I don't consider right away escape me sometimes. Sorry for that. I thought that sig-tanking was more of a True Sansha trait, so the Succubus, Phantasm and the Nightmare can do it to some extent. I wasn't looking to make Asteros go 4km/s with an 10mn ab. I had my True Sanaha ships in mind with the 'right size' afterburner. Let's hope we can make do without module restrictions, the outcry.... CCP while we are at module tiericide, can you consider making some small armor plates and shield extenders viable again? When you introduced 'weapon grouping' the smaller armor plates and shield extenders kinda went extinct over night to account for the inceased damage that ships have to soak up at once. (Read with grandpa Simpson voice) Back in the day our turrets and launchers were operation like this, gun1 - tick, gun2 - tick and so on and now it's 2-8x gun -> splat - tick. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
ArchAngael SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 18	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:11:49 - [109] - Quote BadAssMcKill wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: ArchAngael wrote: Love the 5/50/500 change. I'm less sold on the names. I would rather see more subtlety. Personally I would rather see a certain flavor tag, like cold-gas, mean something specific across all modules and use that to indicate its role. For example, players could learn that cold-gas on any module means less cap use and anytime you see it, you know it's the cap saver module. You could add something to the Show Info to explain it and serve as a reference if people forget, but it would become one more bit of knowledge that makes you a better Eve player. Thats what the Compact (Lower fitting requirements), Enduring (Lower capacitor usage) & Restrained (Lower drawbacks) parts of the name indicate. If you look at some of the other module groups we've Tiericided, you'll see its consistent. "Cold-Gas" is flavor only. The problem arises when you attempt to combine this with flavour names everything becomes too wordy Exactly this. I get that the Enduring, etc indicate the niche they fill, but I find the flavor text both more subtle and more ~immersive~ than just prepending Enduring or whatever. Both of them make the name too long and wordy, but I think a lot of people like the flavor text, so why not use the flavor text itself as the niche definition. Recruiter/Director of Supreme Mathematics Take my Eve Online Ship identification quiz at http://fenjaylabs.com/EveShipIdQuiz
Kaeda Maxwell Screaming Hayabusa Neo-Bushido Movement 342	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:16:52 - [110] - Quote Any chance you could explain to us the reasoning behind buffing T2 mods speed instead of nerfing the tier beneath it? Things have already gotten really fast in EVE first after the T1 cruiser buff and more recently with propulsion mode on T3D's. The reason people currently often fit named MWD's is because they have no meaningful penalty compared to T2. I know developers don't like 'nerfing' stuff but I think it would genuinely be better to nerf the lower ends instead of buffing the higher ends in this case to create meaningful choice. Even more speed seems like a bad idea for the overall health of PvP gameplay atm. Brawling was pretty dead already in anything bigger then frigates in the small gang meta, it really doesn't need another kick in the proverbial nuts.

Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1400	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:19:24 - [111] - Quote ArchAngael wrote: Exactly this. I get that the Enduring, etc indicate the niche they fill, but I find the flavor text both more subtle and more ~immersive~ than just prepending Enduring or whatever. Both of them make the name too long and wordy, but I think a lot of people like the flavor text, so why not use the flavor text itself as the niche definition. You can't have a Cold-Gas Shield Extender or Heavy Missile Launcher, or an Arbalest Tachyon Beam Laser. CCP replaced the variety of naming flavors with this new pattern that is tailored to cater to the dense in the world because it is too hard to memorize some names. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Baron Wikkheiser Best Kept Frozen. 11	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:25:39 - [112] - Quote 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.[/quote] The thing is that the meta is already bad. All these high speed hulls do is to limit choice. People have been choosing hulls that ignore the little problem of projection and application against 4kms cruisers. And while Fozzie and Rise may think it's awesome that many of the best small gang ships are kiting RLML and drone ships, I think I can vouch for some people that it just gets mind numbing using these one-dimensional ships over and over because they are the best option right now
Charlie Firpol Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc. Monkeys with Guns. 311	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:26:33 - [113] - Quote A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. The Butcher of Black Rise - eve-radio.com
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 331	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:28:05 - [114] - Quote Please reduce MWD velocity bonus. 400% is still plenty fast. AB's are still relatively too slow, bordering on uselessness except for niche stuff like gate hugging or FW plex button fighting. Or even more niche, dual prop.
Oddsodz The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare. 153	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:28:46 - [115] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Yeh, Like We really needed that Garmar to have a speed boost with his unkillabe link ship sitting on a gate., The SPEED CREEP is real. Thanks for that. /walks away unhappy.
Masao Kurata Franchise Warfare 222	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:32:47 - [116] - Quote Hmm, an A-type mwd is now 3.35% faster than any mwd with these stats if my maths is right. I'm not sure whether to be concerned or not, ships are already very fast but that's not a big number. RIP explaining to people that the 1MN/10MN/100MN correspond to the ship mass at which the drive performs at specification. I don't see 5/50/500 as a simplification at all. On flavour names in general, I wonder if you've considered what this means for chat, ship scanners (which badly need usability enhancements but that's another topic) and cargo scanners? Longer names run off the window or get wrapped in chat very frequently. However I absolutely love the three different meta mwds, especially the addition of compact, and that there's a compelling reason to fit T2. Maybe just have all meta 5+ MWDs give 510% base speed boost? The cap penalty is already a strong reason to fit higher meta, it's not like these modules aren't in demand now.
prolix travail Blue Mountain Trails 29	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:34:41 - [117] - Quote It looks like a nice change. Having options for fitting mwds appeals to me in particular; Do I need flat out speed or better fitting? maybe i need to be cap stable today? yeah, I like it a lot. A few things: Having the type of mod (restrained/compact) directly after the class (1mn/5mn etc..) would make it easier to search for. Increasing speed is a little concerning, as others have said, particularly in the 5mn size bracket. and Will the new modules be made from bpcs or added to the loot table?
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1264	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:35:07 - [118] - Quote SpaceSaft wrote: I too like the 1mn mwd to 5mn mwd change. I don't like much else about the naming though. Looks like obfuscating, nonhelpful fluff to me. Could you try saying those names 5 times from memory without messing something up or forgetting words? Because I don't think you can. 1MN Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters. 10MN Y-T8 Monopropellant Thrusters. 100MN Quad LiF Booster Rockets. 10MN Monopropellant Hydrazine Boosters. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=708244#post708244 :negative: Challenge Failed. Was fun trying though. I liked me some Catalyzed Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 331	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:45:11 - [119] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: so some simple math your ship does 200m/s and you get a 500% speed boost, your ship now does 1200m/s your ship does 200m/s and you get a 518% speed boost, your ship now does 1236m/s is that really going to cause that much of an issue??? real ship example... Crow, base speed 637 and speed with mwd 4454 using a 518% and speed is 4762 so using a prop mod that's 4x the value of the ship gives you an extra 300m/s in an interceptor... every day players wont notice much change. only the extreme edge cases will any difference be noticed , ie snake sets with full links and faction nano's with quafe... its not going to change much at all Yes... it is a problem... because your ship might do 450m/s Then you add overheating and links and it's not just 36m/s.... CCP really should take their anvil off the gas and apply the brakes.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 29	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:50:00 - [120] - Quote Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded prolix travail wrote: Will the new modules be made from bpcs or added to the loot table? Good question! They are added to the loot table.


Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 332	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:52:03 - [121] - Quote Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. And there you have it.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1142	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:54:54 - [122] - Quote Quote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded and you don't see a problem here?????????????????????????????? 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
Radgette EVE Irn Bru Distribution 97	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:58:05 - [123] - Quote changing the faction and deadspace AB's to all be the same speed is a bad change. It was a good choice that more fitting gave you more speed and that you had a choice of what you wanted from your prop mod. now the only choice is CPU or PG. the MWD changes i guess are alright although the 5-50-500 thing i don't particularly like either it's better staying as 1-10-100 I really like the return of the flavour names I was one of the people who campaigned against there removal in the first place. MWD's do not need more speed. The guy earlier saying the difference between 500 and 518 isn't that much forgot to take into account skills, implants and links. atm a 500% mwd with acc con 5 = 600% mwd, add zors it becomes 656.25% so yes an 18% increase on the base is quite a large change once you start adding just zors.
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 332	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:00:20 - [124] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded prolix travail wrote: Will the new modules be made from bpcs or added to the loot table? Good question! They are added to the loot table. It's really disheartening that you see these numbers and think they are okay. C'mon now...
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 937	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:00:47 - [125] - Quote Please don't add the old-fashioned flavor names. Needlessly complicated. Also, please don't increase the top end speed even more. Nerf the lower meta stuff. Ships are already too fast. Finally, I'd prefer it if the Republic Fleet modules remained more cap efficient - that is why I chose them for many of my fits. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 534	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:03:23 - [126] - Quote Bleedingthrough wrote: The absolute changes on speed for MDWs (103.6% for meta 14 compared to t1) seem a bit too low to make a meaningful difference. Why not go up to 600% total speedbonus? Welcome back to the age of the Nanophoon. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Elwha Lynx The Red Island Foundation Shadow Cartel 1	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:05:55 - [127] - Quote The naming changes are a head scratcher. CCP was doing the right thing in changing mods to a convention of "special-name common-name, But here the most basic mods are breaking the convention by going to "1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner" instead of sticking the convention change of "Y-S8 1MN Afterburner" note the deadspace mods already fit the improved name. Breaking that convention makes things more complex to search and comparisons and confusion to new and vet players alike. Recommend sticking the improved convention... in other words : "Y-S8 1MN Afterburner" etc.
lord xavier Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 62	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:06:59 - [128] - Quote Reducing comlexity by changing 1/10/100 to 5/50/500. Yet, you want to make people open the market tree for prop mods because we wont be bothered to remember things such as y-59 quatum compact cold-gassed aerodynamical speed modication afterburner. Yup, makes sense to me.
Escobar Slim III YOLOSWAGHASHTAGDOLLARBILLZSWIMMINGPOOLICECREAMS 134	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:15:32 - [129] - Quote As a noo player I was told early to fit 1mn on the frigate baots and 10 on the cruiser and the others on the biggers and I truly believe that changing the way we teach our future clone children to tell them at all said that we have to tell them about 5, and 50 and 500 I think we will confuse them. And I thought that the CCP got ridded of the cold-gas thrusters because they made naming not particular easy for noo to remember then changed it so all had easy remembering. Now they change it back to cold-gas I don't understand make it harder surely?
LT Alter Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction -affliction- 160	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:16:17 - [130] - Quote lord xavier wrote: Edit: Faction/Deadspace/Officer should also have substantial changes to make them actually fit to their faction names. Deadspace should scale a bit better and Officer shouldn't be just a "purple" version of the "blue" with the exact same stats. That goes for alot of officer stuff though, This is something that is wrong with Deadspace/Officer mods, higher meta levels should come with more expense and more powerful modules. Right now they cost more and only the top tiers come with bigger bonuses than the Deadspace. I feel it is a good change to flesh out officer mods in a different way than Deadspace to give more variety and to make them worth using.

LT Alter Arbitrary Spaceship Destruction -affliction- 160	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:17:04 - [131] - Quote Phaade wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. And there you have it. By that I hope you mean, "And there you have it, another eve player that can't do the maths."
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 659	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:20:09 - [132] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Quote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded and you don't see a problem here?????????????????????????????? I do, that fit might not do any damage at all.. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Sven Viko VIkolander Friends and Feminists 345	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:20:43 - [133] - Quote I agree with what other competent posters have said: the speed creep is a bad sign and has been increasingly hurting game play for almost 3 years. If anything, there should be a general speed nerf on microwarpdrives in particular and a larger difference on drawbacks/fitting requirements among the meta levels to make fitting decisions even more meaningful. Ever since the teiricide started, way back in Retribution with the initial rebalance of T1 frigates, almost everything got a speed boost and every has gotten faster in game, and it has not been healthy especially with the proliferation of links and faster ships added like garmurs etc.
Charlie Firpol Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc. Monkeys with Guns. 311	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:23:59 - [134] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded LT Alter wrote: Phaade wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. And there you have it. By that I hope you mean, "And there you have it, another eve player that can't do the maths." True, I should-¦ve calculated it myself... He is bad at maths and his garmur is not going 1440m/s faster. The Butcher of Black Rise - eve-radio.com
Jessica Danikov Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:32:08 - [135] - Quote OK, this is a bit ridiculous, all this fussing over 1MN, 5MN, etc. Module sizes, with respect to ship classes, already have a standardized naming scheme: Small, Medium, Large. That's what we use for rigs, for micro jump drives, for shield extenders (but not armor plates, sigh). Microwarpdrives don't need a bigger number in their name to suggest that they're faster than an afterburner, it's intrinsic to the module type. I understand the misgivings about speed creep, but as long as that speed is coming at an appropriate fitting and capacitor cost, I don't have as big an issue with it. Sure, it changes the overall meta, but it makes MWD choice that bit more meaningful, which is overall a step in the right direction. Maybe it'll mean more changes required elsewhere, but that is the nature of balancing: sometimes you tug at a thread and unravel a whole string of changes.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 114	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:33:22 - [136] - Quote When do we get 1000mn and 5000mn mods? Give caps some love. Also local capital hull reps but that's even more off topic.
Reppyk The Black Shell 733	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:34:10 - [137] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Quafe Zero. I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. I AM A LOWSEC GANKER, HIGHSEC SCUM, NULLSEC BASTARD, WORMHOLE INVADER. Welcome to, welcome to, welcome to my scramble. GÖÑ
Bevici Roden The Maythorn 0	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:35:57 - [138] - Quote I do think that speed creep is bad. I would rather the meta modules get nerfed. I do like the name changes, and the different 5/50/500 microwarp names.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 224	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:35:59 - [139] - Quote Jessica Danikov wrote: I understand the misgivings about speed creep, but as long as that speed is coming at an appropriate fitting and capacitor cost. It's not, it's tied to meta levels and the higher meta modules are more or less better in every way.

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 29	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:40:05 - [140] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Woops, forgot Quafe Zero! With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (3x faction overdrives, high grade snakes, zor's custom navigation link, max fleet bonuses and quafe zero) in KSpace I'm getting - 9036 m/s Prepatch > 9327 m/s Postpatch 13085 m/s Prepatch > 13140 m/s Postpatch Overloaded


Tiberian Deci Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore 131	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:42:33 - [141] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Quote: Q: Why have you changed the MWDs to 5/50/500MN? A: We want show there is a clear increase in power between Afterburners and Microwarpdrives. It also makes searching the market a little easier. This is going to get very annoying, very fast. You are making people type in two different strings each time they search for a prop mod in EFT or the market. 1 for frigs, 10 for cruisers, 100 for battleships, please keep it that way. Who on earth uses the search function on a regular basis. Even if you didn't know what the name of the mod is that you were looking for you could still search for "Microwarp drive" and it will bring up the relevant modules. If you're searching for "Experimental 10MN Afterburner" why the hell are you searching, you already know where it is just use the menu to get there.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 224	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:48:16 - [142] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (3x faction overdrives, high grade snakes, zor's custom navigation link, max fleet bonuses and quafe zero) in KSpace I'm getting - 9036 m/s Prepatch > 9327 m/s Postpatch 13085 m/s Prepatch > 13140 m/s Postpatch Overloaded You might want to recheck that, it's obvious that the difference should be larger when hot.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 514	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:51:58 - [143] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Rekt. That said, now that you've differentiated MWDs, I proposed to reduce all MWD base speed values by 50, so A-Types get 468%, Tech 2 455% and so forth. Things are getting a little too Need For Speedy II. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Hendrink Collie Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club 15	Posted - 2015.05.04 17:57:24 - [144] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Rekt. That said, now that you've differentiated MWDs, I proposed to reduce all MWD base speed values by 50, so A-Types get 468%, Tech 2 460% and so forth. Things are getting a little too Need For Speedy II. I actually really like this tweak, an across the board -50% on MWDs. +1 Larrikin, what would that do to the above example, if you don't mind.
Tyr Dolorem Snuff Box Snuffed Out 49	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:00:21 - [145] - Quote I still don't think you've done enough to differentiate officer from deadspace.
Ereshgikal Strange Energy The Bastion 47	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:03:42 - [146] - 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". Besides that - I like it, and I think you've struck a good balance between conserving flavor and adding clarity. Or you can use "500MN" since that would now be MWDs only.... @CCP: I like all the changes; speed; names; fitting. Nice work!
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1316	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:05:33 - [147] - Quote In before garmur nerf? Yaay!!!!
Tikktokk Tokkzikk Soteriophobia The Periphery 213	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:13:56 - [148] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: In before garmur nerf? If my calculations are correct, my Garmur just went from 7,333m/s to 7,596m/s. Can't say a buffed Garmur makes me happy.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 224	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:16:37 - [149] - Quote 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?
Marcel Devereux Aideron Robotics 439	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:20:17 - [150] - Quote In this rebalance pass, can we please get the tags removed from the LP as a requirement? I mean to create a 1MN Federation MWD, you have to spend 372M ISK to create it.

Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 224	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:25:50 - [151] - Quote Whaaa I just noticed the 60% heat bonus for officer mods, they're actually good now.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:26:15 - [152] - 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.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 515	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:31:19 - [153] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Quote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded and you don't see a problem here?????????????????????????????? It's more with the Garmur having a low ship mass - any frigate can come close to those speeds with such a setup, but yes OGB proliferation and current MWD boost amounts is bad. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1403	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:34:08 - [154] - Quote Tiberian Deci wrote: Who on earth uses the search function on a regular basis. Even if you didn't know what the name of the mod is that you were looking for you could still search for "Microwarp drive" and it will bring up the relevant modules. If you're searching for "Experimental 10MN Afterburner" why the hell are you searching, you already know where it is just use the menu to get there. I use it nearly exclusively to find things in the market. I hate the menus, submenus, subsubmenues, expanding and collapsing menus. A simple "1MN A" in the search field and I get all I want. Same for "Javelin", "Antim", "Dram", "Cyna", "Provi", "Conflag", "Experimental" ... you get the picture. I do not understand why people use the menus in the first place. As soon as you have used modules often enough, you should have memorized their names and will be a whole lot faster with the search function to get to the modules than with clicking and scrolling through the menus. The only time when I find the menus useful is when I look for special things that I do not use often. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:34:16 - [155] - 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.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3637	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:40:39 - [156] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I do like the name cold gas though. Monop..... Whatever is a bit long. If you're having so much difficulty with a 5-syllable word as to render it beyond your ability to even type, I must wonder whether you and your vocabulary flip burgers for a living. SpaceyX wrote: Where are the capital propulsion mods? In hell, where the ships that would fit them should be.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1316	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:40:57 - [157] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Harvey James wrote: Quote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded and you don't see a problem here?????????????????????????????? It's more with the Garmur having a low ship mass along with high base speed - any frigate can come close to those speeds with such a setup, but yes OGB proliferation and current MWD boost amounts is bad. I will say this, if they move ogb to ongrid boosts, then the speed buff is fine. In this case, while there is power creep, the issue still revolves around boosts rather than the actual ship module (whatever tweak is made, boosts magnify it significantly). Yaay!!!!
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1142	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:41:37 - [158] - Quote a little surprised that the 'upgraded' meta isnt here, would allow more speed nerfs on the mwd's and some speed buffs on AB'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
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1062	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:44:44 - [159] - Quote it's too difficult to catch fast kiting ships. as for just shooting them, I don't think making them even faster is going to do useless missiles/combat drones any good.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1062	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:51:40 - [160] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded why are you okay with this? is it not obviously a problem to you?

Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2465	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:51:55 - [161] - Quote Glad to see the flavour names back :) But as mentioned, you could have the 'enduring' before 'the cold gas'. And i also feel the Meta 0 items are being left as too poor EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
John Eod Merlins Online 0	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:11:48 - [162] - Quote I believe it has been mentioned already but some of the deadspace afterburners (Gistii / Gistum / Gist) would become sort of useless as their current advantage over their coreli/corelum/core counterparts is removed. I would suggest either keeping the latter with their current speed bonus, or increasing the former's a bit so they continue being faster than the Gist line (which focuses on better activation cost)
Hiram Alexander State Reprisal 357	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:42:11 - [163] - Quote Great to see the return of the old names, and I really like the 5MN/50/500 convention. Not seeing a lot there to make Indies cheer, though... Meta 0 still needs a 'boost'.
Terra Chrall Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 22	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:44:26 - [164] - 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.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 191	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:51:15 - [165] - Quote its amazing how many people are reading ccp's figures wrong. With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting Before 8606 m/s After 8883 m/s Difference a whopping 277m/s on a dead space fitted frigate Overheated Before 12462 m/s After 12514 m/s Diffrence is 52m/s These ships can already do these speeds... so whats the big outcry?
Hengle Teron Just Another Corp XIV 49341	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:51:19 - [166] - Quote I still think the descriptive part of name is unnecessary (ex. restrained). Still won't remember which descriptive name means what exactly and therefore will have to still look up the stats, just as if it wasn't there. e: oh and all 'storyline' items are still too expensive to build to be worth the minimal improvement on a t2 module. (for some module it's even cheaper to get the best dedspace module)
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1065	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:53:56 - [167] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: its amazing how many people are reading ccp's figures wrong. With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting Before 8606 m/s After 8883 m/s Difference a whopping 277m/s on a dead space fitted frigate Overheated Before 12462 m/s After 12514 m/s Diffrence is 52m/s These ships can already do these speeds... so whats the big outcry? because it's broken and they aren't fixing it, and I'll be here crying about it at every opportunity
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 333	Posted - 2015.05.04 20:18:31 - [168] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Rekt. That said, now that you've differentiated MWDs, I proposed to reduce all MWD base speed values by 50, so A-Types get 468%, Tech 2 460% and so forth. Things are getting a little too Need For Speedy II. This man needs to be heard!
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1641	Posted - 2015.05.04 20:41:42 - [169] - Quote To keep things simple I am only commenting regarding the faction afterburners. Whilst the capacitor reduction on federation navy after burners is definately appreciated, republic fleet are getting a very poor deal here. They were chosen by many for their capacitor use, and whilst things change, and that is perfectly fine, we shouldn't get stuck in a rut, they really now have absolutely nothing going for them. In exchange for the loss of their defining feature, give them something worthwhile, a very low cpu need, or a really significant speed boost! The tiny cpu difference they currently are being given is not enough to define them. Thank you. Overall, this is much better than was feared, clearly much thought has been put into propulsion modules. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2028	Posted - 2015.05.04 20:55:37 - [170] - Quote Thanks for adding the flavour back into the names. But why speed creep? Why not nerf lower metas and leave top speed alone? MWD overheat effect already results in some broken speeds. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

Arla Sarain 417	Posted - 2015.05.04 20:57:38 - [171] - Quote Remove the arbitrary code nomenclature in the name. Compact Afterburner Enduring Microwarp Drive. None of the YMCA70 mumbo jumob.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 263	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:12:42 - [172] - Quote Speed creep literally makes the game miserable and ship choices very stale. It is particularly frustrating for newer players who are supposed to be learning to tackle things to have cruisers be faster than their overheating frigates, while at the same time having near perfect damage application. I'm all for newbies dying, a lot, but its gotten to the point where things like the Orthrus are just too over the top. The same can be said of many hulls right now. Brawling is dead, and as a result, people don't get as many fights as they used to - everyone just speeds away the moment a bigger gang comes a long catching things has become excessively difficult. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Alexis Nightwish 168	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:17:23 - [173] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Yeah but the current meta, (as it relates to speed), sucks! Given that, I like the increase on speed for Afterburners, but I do NOT like the increase on speed for MWDs. EVE is already "Go MWD or go home." If anything, this rework should be used to reduce the speed bonus of MWDs. T1 should be +400%, Officer should be +500%, and everything else in the middle. Speaking of officer mods, why are they in the same league as deadspace? Shouldn't they be in a class of their own? +10% OH bonus still doesn't justify their pricetag, and they will continue being blingpoop. I don't care for the '5xMN' nomanclature. Not because it'll make things harder to look up (it will, but that's not the reason). I don't like it because it makes it easy to remove 'AB' and 'MWD' from discussion. There's a very big difference between these types of modules, and a new player would likely not see any difference other than 'One goes faster but has higher fitting', thus completely missing the capacitor penalty and signature bloom aspects. Also, it used to be easy to say "If your ship uses small rigs, use a 1MN prop mod." A small increase in complexity, but the game already has a deadly learning curve for newbros. Also I can't wait to explain that 5MN is not only for destroyers. :/ Please put format for names consistantly like faction/deadspace/officer: [flavortext] [tiericide name] [xMN] [AB/MWD]. It's the most easily searched format. I don't know why T1/meta/T2 are in a different (worse) format. So "1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner" should be "Y-S8 Compact 1MN Afterburner" The sig bloom bonus of higher meta MWDs still doesn't mean anything for cruiser and BS sized modules. Consider lowering the bloom on these so that at the very least cruisers aren't above 400m (BS gun sig) and BS aren't above 2000m (dread gun sig). I am disappointed that you did not take this opportunity to give the Faction prop mods a little something special, or even distinguish between them. For example Serpentis and Fed Navy are exact carbon copies of each other. Couldn't you at least maybe give the pirate prop mods a slightly reduced mass penalty? Or the Navy/Fleet ones a small overheat bonus? I'd have to see the actual numbers, but T2MWDs still look like they won't be used due to the same reason as before: consume more cap than meta. I know they're a bit faster now, but 5% won't be enough to justify the capacitor usage. Lastly, I love the return of flavor text. Ignore the haters! :) CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2028	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:18:09 - [174] - Quote 13km/s ships? And they need a buff? What is going on over there? Server tick mechanics make these sort of speeds miserable to deal with. Please claw back on speed rather than buff it. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Zepheros Naeonis TinklePee 31	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:25:40 - [175] - Quote So much crying over the 1/10/100 & 5/50/500 change. I am glad they are distinguishing them now. I will say the meta name changes are a bit ridiculous and even more confusing.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 269	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:27:12 - [176] - Quote Altrue wrote: 5,50,500, good change. The whole "name flavor" stuff, I still don't get it. Quote: Goals of Module Teiracide: Reduce unnecessary complexity LOL. Enduring mwd, restrained mwd, that's enough of a name. No need to add the whole monopropellant YS-5 bull****. Same thing for the other names you butchered: Missile launchers, power diags, reactor control units, etc... How can you claim its reducing complexity when those names take 5 seconds to pronounce... That's beyond my understanding. Its not because its old school that its any good. Except people like me and others specifically asked for more lore-ish names. Because "Enduring MWD" and "Restrained MWD" sounds extremely bland and stupid for such a lore dedicated game. You're playing Eve, and you're complaining about complexity? Ignore it then. But don't sacrifice the feel of the game for simplicity's sake. Extending your logic, we should just call all the ships "Gallente logi cruiser" or "Caldari Ewar cruiser".
Fonton G0P-ST0P P I R A T 24	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:41:07 - [177] - Quote Names - Nice! But take attention on format. Maybe [model] [tier name] [mn class] [module] will be easier for search and will be agreed with deadspace name system. MWD waits for speed nerf neither of buff. Go for 350% - 400%. t1 capital prop mods?
Daerrol Quantum Singularities Half Massed 141	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:50:55 - [178] - Quote Suitonia wrote: I think speed creep is unhealthy for the game and hope you're keeping an eye on this. +1. We don't need faster ships. We. don't. need. faster. ships.
Stridsflygplan NorCorp Enterprise 86	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:05:27 - [179] - Quote Please dont touch the 500% speed bonus on the MWDs. speed creep is bad, use the other stats to balance the items. The balance that the AB/MWD has on TQ right now is very good and only need some minor tweaks. Like making the T2 MWD viable.
Alundil Isogen 5 925	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:06:59 - [180] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Quote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded and you don't see a problem here?????????????????????????????? I was thinking this same thing lol. Person A >It's 1440 m/s faster. Person B >No, no. Top speed only goes from 12 (thousand) 462 m/s to 12 (THOUsand) 514 m/s. An,all together, underwhelming increase of merely 52 m/s. Clearly math is hard. It's like debating the color and intensity of the flames in a burning building....while standing in said burning building. Top Kek I'm right behind you

Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 1089	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:12:45 - [181] - Quote woohoo for the flavor names coming back! really miss my y-t8s also like the 1/10/100, 5/50/500 split as that way I can just type 10mn and get all cruiser afterburners, or 500mn and get all the BS microwarpdrives. I do support moving the names around so they all have "flavor text, quality, size, type" so YT-8 Compact 50mn Microwarpdrive, that way a search for "50mn micro" will also show all cruiser sized MWDs. and "compact 5" will show all compact microwarpdrives. I do think there is some oddness with the meta 8 mods (think it is a typo). same cap penalty and speed bonus, but different cap use and I'm not sure the 450 vs 470 sig radius penalty, is a meaningful difference, oh right and doesn't apply to afterburners. the PG vs CPU tradeoffs have been there. oh and the cap use seems to be reversed by faction going from meta 8 to higher meta. domination is high cap use and gist is low, where serp is low cap and core is high? looking in game it looks like there is a typo there as the difference from tq value doesn't work. will defer commentary on the speed bonus to others. all I'll say is that I remember speed getting nerfed at least twice. @ChainsawPlankto
Miali Askulf Black Rise Freight 4	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:28:12 - [182] - Quote T2 MWDs still seem really underwhelming - almost worse than they are now compared to the restrained meta drive. Don't really see a problem with very high meta stuff getting somewhat faster (sure it's silly in combination with links/snakes/particular ships, but what isn't?), but keeping meta 0-5 where they are or lower would be good.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 1089	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:28:31 - [183] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Tiberian Deci wrote: Who on earth uses the search function on a regular basis. Even if you didn't know what the name of the mod is that you were looking for you could still search for "Microwarp drive" and it will bring up the relevant modules. If you're searching for "Experimental 10MN Afterburner" why the hell are you searching, you already know where it is just use the menu to get there. I use it nearly exclusively to find things in the market. I hate the menus, submenus, subsubmenues, expanding and collapsing menus. A simple "1MN A" in the search field and I get all I want. Same for "Javelin", "Antim", "Dram", "Cyna", "Provi", "Conflag", "Experimental" ... you get the picture. I do not understand why people use the menus in the first place. As soon as you have used modules often enough, you should have memorized their names and will be a whole lot faster with the search function to get to the modules than with clicking and scrolling through the menus. The only time when I find the menus useful is when I look for special things that I do not use often. I pretty much always use search, far faster to type a few letters (and for the most part that is really all you need) and get exactly what I want then to mouse through the browser. Although there are a few mods without standardized names that cause trouble, stupid meta webs. add in the new find group in browse tab button search is awesome! @ChainsawPlankto
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3223	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:36:35 - [184] - Quote As others have said, bringing MWD speed bonuses down a little would probably be a welcome change - start the meta-0 modules at 450% instead of 500% with the high-metas peaking at around 475-480 and it will help to bring some of the crazier speeds currently possible back in line. Maybe reduce the sig bloom in the same way to compensate. 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.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 659	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:41:40 - [185] - Quote Chainsaw Plankton wrote: ... Although there are a few mods without standardized names that cause trouble, stupid meta webs... I hear ya! My guess is that they will get to them at some point too. Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 659	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:42:36 - [186] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Woops, forgot Quafe Zero! With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (3x faction overdrives, high grade snakes, zor's custom navigation link, max fleet bonuses and quafe zero) in KSpace I'm getting - 9036 m/s Prepatch > 9327 m/s Postpatch 13085 m/s Prepatch > 13140 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Cough.. Black Hole effect wormholes.. cough Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Warde Guildencrantz TunDraGon That Escalated Quickly. 1208	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:06:53 - [187] - Quote Instant +1 for Y-T8's return (even if it used to be a 10mn microwarpdrive, not a 1mn microwarpdrive) TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us My ship fits
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2117	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:54:43 - [188] - Quote Quick version feedback. More work needed on Meta 0. CCP you need to work out what role Meta 0 modules should actually have and tell us. If that role is only to be used as a build for T2 modules and to invent from, fine, but be clear that's the intent. Otherwise they need a real role. Speeds, slow down MWD please. As suggested, 400% base, officers can stay at 500% I guess or even 450%. Need for speed meta is not good. (Missiles also need 'long range' ammo that goes faster and precision missiles should get more speed to help with the speed meta also). Naming. Should be able to search 1mn Compact and compare MWD & AB, to decide which you want on a fit. Naming needs to be in easy search order with fluff parts of the name not interfering with that search.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1467	Posted - 2015.05.05 00:10:55 - [189] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "Experimental 100MN Afterburner I" become "100MN Monopropellant Enduring Afterburner" First impression is that they are longer, meaningless names. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 5059	Posted - 2015.05.05 00:44:10 - [190] - Quote My thoughts: - Range them from 450 to 500, not 500 to 520. - Keep only 'cool' old names, not all of them. Cold-Gas is (IMO) 'cool'. Monopropellant? Just no. - Restrained is by far the best budget one - is this the intention? I suggest 400% sigbloom, 25% cap drain instead of 450/20. Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out. I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com

Irya Boone Never Surrender. 450	Posted - 2015.05.05 00:51:36 - [191] - Quote Hummm i think the objective of "decomplexification" is not achieved here ... Please ccp you need to review the new MWD with the overoverover ships in the game orthrus, Worm , svipul ... I think a ship going at 7km/s ...it's just too much CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !! you shall all bow and pray BoB
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 516	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:06:29 - [192] - Quote Phaade wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Charlie Firpol wrote: A friend of mine that regulary flies boosted, snaked factionfit Garmurs just did the numbers. His Garmur will be 1440m/s faster after this, without heat. Hrm, Can I see you friends math? With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded Rekt. That said, now that you've differentiated MWDs, I proposed to reduce all MWD base speed values by 50, so A-Types get 468%, Tech 2 460% and so forth. Things are getting a little too Need For Speedy II. This man needs to be heard! Here's their chance. Will they deliver? I agree with other posters with respect to having a wider speed boost band between the different Meta MWDs. Base 500% in an OGB world is bad. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Zeus Cronus Hull Breach. Pirate Coalition 3	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:33:56 - [193] - Quote Ppl complaining about these ships going to fast sure as hell got teflon brains, or are just to young to remember.
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 185	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:37:59 - [194] - Quote Yet another gewn buff and huge south nerf. gg CCP Lapdog. I'm starting to wonder if I should get to finding ways of getting my subscription money back. And yes, I guess I'm going to unsub for a while, post-fanfest series of gewn buffs is overwhelming, CCP Lapdog really intends to give eve to one coalition. Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy. If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 660	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:40:12 - [195] - Quote Zeus Cronus wrote: Ppl complaining about these ships going to fast sure as hell got teflon brains, or are just to young to remember. Said the two day old troll and was never heard from again Tired of low and nullsec? Join Eve Minions and experience the beauty of wormholes!
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 267	Posted - 2015.05.05 02:04:08 - [196] - Quote Ship balancing is one of the most important issues to a fair amount of people - does the ship variety out there lend itself to fun match ups and interactions? Do we actually see people fielding a variety of ships? I don't think it does, and I don't think they currently do. People want visceral, bloody combat, especially with the new sov system supposedly emphasizing smaller gang warfare. It's going to be a real disappointment if we just see the same boring kiting line-ups all the time. People are tired of fights not happening because both fleets/entities are sufficiently agile to disengage at moments notice. It's not one thing that causes this syndrome, just a general continual selective buffing of speed, application and range. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 5060	Posted - 2015.05.05 02:16:00 - [197] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Yet another gewn buff and huge south nerf. gg CCP Lapdog. I'm starting to wonder if I should get to finding ways of getting my subscription money back. And yes, I guess I'm going to unsub for a while, post-fanfest series of gewn buffs is overwhelming, CCP Lapdog really intends to give eve to one coalition. ... ... ... most of the feedback from Goonswarm people in this thread has been suggesting changes to the proposed implementation. But don't let logic get in the way of a GRR GOONS rant! Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out. I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 185	Posted - 2015.05.05 02:57:00 - [198] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Yet another gewn buff and huge south nerf. gg CCP Lapdog. I'm starting to wonder if I should get to finding ways of getting my subscription money back. And yes, I guess I'm going to unsub for a while, post-fanfest series of gewn buffs is overwhelming, CCP Lapdog really intends to give eve to one coalition. ... ... ... most of the feedback from Goonswarm people in this thread has been suggesting changes to the proposed implementation. But don't let logic get in the way of a GRR GOONS rant! I don't see a flaw on my logic, it's gewns we're talking about - no matter how incredible buff they're about to get is, be it perfectly tuned for their bot miner fleets rebalance of null ores, capital nerfs, or ultra-safe afk/bot ratting environment Phoebe has brought, they will always try for even more. "suggesting changes" my ass... Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy. If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Mitch Ryan Zirconium Industries 1	Posted - 2015.05.05 03:07:44 - [199] - Quote Is changing all the module names actually necessary? Seems you like you are making more work for yourselves and over complicating things.
Galphii Caldari Provisions Caldari State 310	Posted - 2015.05.05 03:17:33 - [200] - Quote Uh, is the "compact" 100mn AB going to make it easier to fit those ridiculous 100mn AB tengu fits? Because they need to die. "Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 185	Posted - 2015.05.05 03:28:45 - [201] - Quote Galphii wrote: Uh, is the "compact" 100mn AB going to make it easier to fit those ridiculous 100mn AB tengu fits? Because they need to die. Somebody has missed the T3 nerf. Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy. If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 1092	Posted - 2015.05.05 03:30:35 - [202] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Zeus Cronus wrote: Ppl complaining about these ships going to fast sure as hell got teflon brains, or are just to young to remember. Said the two day old troll and was never heard from again well my crow used to go 10km/s and I think that was with a few 3% implants and a zors (and meh skills). Although I guess the polycarbon rigs cost 50mil each, or something. I think DHB's mach did 15km/s (possible overstatement, pre-first nano nerf, or maybe with links?), and I teamwork crow did 18km/s. that dude used to fit an Estamel's BCU on a crow for lulz have a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksOJQ5biQmI speeds used to be a bit crazy.... @ChainsawPlankto
Jenshae Chiroptera 1468	Posted - 2015.05.05 04:04:08 - [203] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Galphii wrote: Uh, is the "compact" 100mn AB going to make it easier to fit those ridiculous 100mn AB tengu fits? Because they need to die. Somebody has missed the T3 nerf. Training the right subsystem(s) to V brings the ships back up to what people were flying them on IV. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2436	Posted - 2015.05.05 04:31:59 - [204] - Quote I thought there was a mathematical reason for 1MN, 10MN, and 100MN: the MN stands for million Newtons, and it's supposed to represent how much force is applied. Now the actual force value is 1.5, 15, and 150, but that is because an additional 0.5, 5, or 50 million kilograms of mass has been added. It's part of how the speed calculation works. Please leave the MWDs with the old numbers. But I would like to see a 2MN and 20MN variant of each, with matching stats. There are a few destroyers and battlecruisers that would love to use such modules. A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
Sniper Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 422	Posted - 2015.05.05 05:07:43 - [205] - Quote In general I like these ideas.. But I have a proposal.. We mess with PG, CPU, Activation, Penalty, and now Sig and Speed. How about dropping in a line with Overheat bonuses? Not just for these, but all active modules.. Less Speed, more sig, more cap, either better Overheat speed or better overheat sustainability..
Rob Kashuken Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 72	Posted - 2015.05.05 07:38:39 - [206] - Quote Add me to the voices concerned over speed creep. I think that increasing the meta level should only result in decreasing the fitting requirements and/or base cap usage. Whilst off-topic for this thread, is there any intent to look at a Tieracide for ewar modules anytime soon?
Zeus Cronus Hull Breach. Pirate Coalition 3	Posted - 2015.05.05 07:56:05 - [207] - Quote elitatwo wrote: Zeus Cronus wrote: Ppl complaining about these ships going to fast sure as hell got teflon brains, or are just to young to remember. Said the two day old troll and was never heard from again Oh sorry, didnt know that a 2012 char was a two day old troll... Why dont you go back to you cave, and try to not live up to the alliance name as fully as you do Those 88 kills you got on eve-kill really makes you an expert on the subject of this i guess
MukkBarovian Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 41	Posted - 2015.05.05 08:09:07 - [208] - Quote I like it. I'm not worried about speed power creep because these changes are tiny. The differentiation of the different mods looks fine and somewhat interesting.
Diabolus Darkdoom Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 2	Posted - 2015.05.05 08:09:55 - [209] - Quote Why is there still no mention of 1000/5000mn prop mods for caps?
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 188	Posted - 2015.05.05 08:17:13 - [210] - Quote Diabolus Darkdoom wrote: Why is there still no mention of 1000/5000mn prop mods for caps? Because why do you want to nerf the Phoenix more?

Diabolus Darkdoom Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 2	Posted - 2015.05.05 08:19:39 - [211] - Quote No Idea what you're on about, the Phoenix is amazing.
Red Irondoll Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.05.05 08:29:51 - [212] - Quote Hello, I like the changes. But names stills too long and mwd speed creep is unnecessary IMO a max speed bonus 500% is enough if you want add speed diffences, just lower the basic bonus to 450/480%. Thank you.
BackstreetsRoy Bittan Research 3	Posted - 2015.05.05 08:44:43 - [213] - Quote The change to 5/50/500 makes perfect sense and I support that. Why people are complaining that its "more confusing" is beyond me. Its a MWD and it boosts five times as much. Seriously, we play this complex game and THIS is too much for some???? I'm more inclined to think people are either OCD on names or are worried that their spreadsheets or other such DIY software creations are not going to work is their real reason for whining over this. Speed creep - well I'll trust CCP on this one. I like the idea of getting an increase and if that causes problems then let CCP adjust in the future. More variations in benefits/drawbacks is a good thing imo. Definitely against the idea of nerfing low end to reduce speed creep. Y-S and Y-T, for the information of the younger players, is exactly how it used to be and I for one like the extra flavour introduced (maybe I am being a bit nostalgic here). Having said that I wouldn't want this carried too far - maybe just a few occassions and not toally back to the old nightmare days off so many different names to use. Cheers Roy
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1150	Posted - 2015.05.05 09:09:12 - [214] - Quote OK so it's not going to be popular but maybe the ACTUAL problem with speed creep is the stacking of links, drugs and implants. How bad are these ships without these things? Maybe some (more?) stacking penalties need to apply (or are in the pipe). Or only pick the highest and ignore the rest. Strikes me that, like so many thing in EVE, they're ok until you double/triple up on them via other means. tl;dr: I have a strong suspicion that the prop mods aren't actually the villains here.
HandelsPharmi Pharmi on CharBazaar 1276	Posted - 2015.05.05 10:10:49 - [215] - Quote A few persons think the 5/50/500 MN MWD will be 5 times faster than before... Funny, they haven`t understood the physical mechanics yet :( Renaming +1 Tiericide (Meta levels) +1 market speculation +1
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 631	Posted - 2015.05.05 10:39:19 - [216] - Quote Don't listen to these skeezballs complaining about the renames. Y-S8 and Cold-Gas are legend! There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Ddolik Viscosity Fidelas Constans 28	Posted - 2015.05.05 10:57:46 - [217] - Quote please do not boost any mwd, more likely nerf them all by 15% atleast. The 5 50 500 is very cool and boost littlebit ABs

CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 54	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:18:32 - [218] - Quote First up, thanks mates for all the awesome feedback! Masao Kurata wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (3x faction overdrives, high grade snakes, zor's custom navigation link, max fleet bonuses and quafe zero) in KSpace I'm getting - 9036 m/s Prepatch > 9327 m/s Postpatch 13085 m/s Prepatch > 13140 m/s Postpatch Overloaded You might want to recheck that, it's obvious that the difference should be larger when hot. I have, and its legit. Its because of the way overloading stacks with other bonuses. TrouserDeagle wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded why are you okay with this? is it not obviously a problem to you? Lets look at some other MWD speeds, across classes (regular / overloaded): Regular Garmur (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 5015 / 7251 > Post 5176 / 7281 Kestrel (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3480 / 5017 > Post 3770 / 5290 Svipul (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3572 / 5107 > Post 3683 / 5129 Orthrus (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3054 / 4421 > Post 3152 / 4439 Augoror Navy Issue (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1896 / 2719 > Post 1938 / 2705 Ishtar (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 2084 / 3004 > Post 2149 / 3016 Drake (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1316 / 1882 > Post 1356 / 1889 Tornado (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 2077 / 2968 > Post 2141 / 2980 Machariel (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1994 / 2885 > Post 2058 / 2897 Abaddon (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 896 / 1292 > Post 922 / 1294 We need to look at the entire meta, not just the edge cases. Do I like that Garmur going 13k/s? Not really, but that fit is worth over 2b (including implants) and has made a lot of sacrifices to go that fast Arguing that 55m/s faster on a max speed fit overloading Garmur is going to break the meta is slightly ridiculous. I am not suggesting that we won't change the progression of speed bonuses on MWDs. Some of the ideas on this thread are solid and something we will be reviewing. Lowering the overall bonuses from MWDs is not going to address the kiting issues being brought up in this thread. Stacking, bonuses & reviewing specific hulls are much better ways 'fix' that issue. Please be patient with us =) Alexis Nightwish wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Yeah but the current meta, (as it relates to speed), sucks! Given that, I like the increase on speed for Afterburners, but I do NOT like the increase on speed for MWDs. EVE is already "Go MWD or go home." If anything, this rework should be used to reduce the speed bonus of MWDs. T1 should be +400%, Officer should be +500%, and everything else in the middle. Please see my above comments. To add to that, we'd rather have a small progression between Meta 0 and Meta 17 modules. Having even a larger difference between new players (using meta 0 & 1 modules) and veterans (using Meta 15 to 17 modules) is not something we consider desirable. Alundil wrote: It's like debating the color and intensity of the flames in a burning building....while standing in said burning building. This is Eve =) afkalt wrote: tl;dr: I have a strong suspicion that the prop mods aren't actually the villains here. Give this man a cookie!

Ju0ZaS Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 82	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:23:07 - [219] - Quote People complainig bout some speed creep... Probay the nubs that aproach f1 everything in their slow ass buffer ship and can't see past the exchange of dps vs buffer/rep amount. Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1070	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:28:20 - [220] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: We need to look at the entire meta, not just the edge cases. Do I like that Garmur going 13k/s? Not really, but that fit is worth over 2b (including implants) and has made a lot of sacrifices to go that fast Arguing that 55m/s faster on a max speed fit overloading Garmur is going to break the meta is slightly ridiculous. I am not suggesting that we won't change the progression of speed bonuses on MWDs. Some of the ideas on this thread are solid and something we will be reviewing. Lowering the overall bonuses from MWDs is not going to address the kiting issues being brought up in this thread. Stacking, bonuses & reviewing specific hulls are much better ways 'fix' that issue. Please be patient with us =) I was more going for the game already being broken, and that until you nerf link range and effectiveness, you are all baddies.

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15823	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:29:18 - [221] - Quote Zeus Cronus wrote: elitatwo wrote: Zeus Cronus wrote: Ppl complaining about these ships going to fast sure as hell got teflon brains, or are just to young to remember. Said the two day old troll and was never heard from again Oh sorry, didnt know that a 2012 char was a two day old troll... Why dont you go back to you cave, and try to not live up to the alliance name as fully as you do Those 88 kills you got on eve-kill really makes you an expert on the subject of this i guess Then allow me to also chime in with concerns over the speed changes. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2034	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:29:32 - [222] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Lowering the overall bonuses from MWDs is not going to address the kiting issues being brought up in this thread. Stacking, bonuses & reviewing specific hulls are much better ways 'fix' that issue. Please be patient with us =) This is hopeful. But in the meantime please don't keep introducing ships in a broken state. Garmur, Orthrus, T3Ds were all in the wrong direction. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1013	Posted - 2015.05.05 11:34:29 - [223] - Quote Ju0ZaS wrote: People complainig bout some speed creep... Probay the nubs that aproach f1 everything in their slow ass buffer ship and can't see past the exchange of dps vs buffer/rep amount. Said the highsec wardec pilot who mainly flies a bufferprot.
Mike Whiite Geuzen Inc 378	Posted - 2015.05.05 12:35:25 - [224] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: First up, thanks mates for all the awesome feedback! [ Lets look at some other MWD speeds, across classes (regular / overloaded): Regular Garmur (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 5015 / 7251 > Post 5176 / 7281 Kestrel (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3480 / 5017 > Post 3770 / 5290 Svipul (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3572 / 5107 > Post 3683 / 5129 Orthrus (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3054 / 4421 > Post 3152 / 4439 Augoror Navy Issue (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1896 / 2719 > Post 1938 / 2705 Ishtar (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 2084 / 3004 > Post 2149 / 3016 Drake (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1316 / 1882 > Post 1356 / 1889 Tornado (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 2077 / 2968 > Post 2141 / 2980 Machariel (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1994 / 2885 > Post 2058 / 2897 Abaddon (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 896 / 1292 > Post 922 / 1294 We need to look at the entire meta, not just the edge cases. Do I like that Garmur going 13k/s? Not really, but that fit is worth over 2b (including implants) and has made a lot of sacrifices to go that fast Correct me i I'm wrong but what I see= 1) Lower signature penalties 2) Faster MWD's and all the AB's are going faster as well now as a pilot who likes to fly missiles ships, that to my humble opinion have already problems with damage application on many platforms. taking in consideration almost ever ship uses a prop mod. how is this not a direct nerf on missles as a whole, you could just as well have nerfed their explosion radius an exploision velocity. with 10 to 20 %. will torpedo's not fired from extremly bonused hulls every do damage to something that is not a structure or a capital? since you where talking of looking at whole picture.
Crysantos Callahan Control-Space 35	Posted - 2015.05.05 12:39:04 - [225] - Quote Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. Edit 1: that new mwd and hacs gon be awesome or horrible depending on how much u like ishtars less sig is pretty strong. Also good on logis (i am good at observations yo) Edit 2: Super fast ships have some serious issues with server ticks and locking them. Sometimes you find yourself jumping a gate with a ceptor and due to how server ticks work you might fail the first try to lock him while he is clearly heating mwd towards you. It is a minor thing but it is a annoying problem with how fast these frigs go. Edit 3: deadspace mwd speed buff is fine for 50MN and 500MN but for 5MN it is broken. These ships are already so fast and there are a couple that are borderline cancerous to the other frigates and those are the exact same frigates that will benefit from more speed. Edit 4: The new mwd seems super strong sacrificing almost nothing for that sig reduction and **** Pretty much this - especially the #1 and #2 I'd rather see a reduction in cap usage or increase the duration.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1152	Posted - 2015.05.05 12:49:05 - [226] - Quote Mike Whiite wrote: missile stuff I believe missiles are getting a look this patch too, I'm reserving judgement until then. That said, I'm trying to remember the last time I fired one not at an NPC....
Sean Parisi Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T 683	Posted - 2015.05.05 12:54:47 - [227] - Quote Add agikity and masd based abs/ mwd's
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1770	Posted - 2015.05.05 13:27:25 - [228] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Arguing that 55m/s faster on a max speed fit overloading Garmur is going to break the meta is slightly ridiculous. I am not suggesting that we won't change the progression of speed bonuses on MWDs. Some of the ideas on this thread are solid and something we will be reviewing. Yeah they already can outrun light missile from anything but another mordu ship or a triple missile speed rigged and missile speed bonused ship so I guess 55 m/s more is not a big deal...
Ju0ZaS Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 82	Posted - 2015.05.05 14:06:22 - [229] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Ju0ZaS wrote: People complainig bout some speed creep... Probay the nubs that aproach f1 everything in their slow ass buffer ship and can't see past the exchange of dps vs buffer/rep amount. Said the highsec wardec pilot who mainly flies a bufferprot. I fly a lot more than that. And I barely use that thing so you may keep your silly comments to yourself. Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
Oktura Ostus Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.05.05 14:09:53 - [230] - Quote People are strange. They've found out that there is 2b fit for kiting frigate that can do 13k and now they are trying to make problem from this. If it's so overpowered then why you don't flight it now? It's lowskill. Please do! The patch will add only 0.3% to those 13k. It's already 13k. It's already should be imba. May be because your invested billions needs good hands and won't survive smartbombs on the gate? Or may be because you have cruiser size signature, can't sig-tank and any arty/alpha cruiser fit can instapop your millions? Or may be because of boring pvp, nobody want's to play with you, as boring as in worm? If it were really imba, we should see them everywhere, like ishtars or svipuls. Furthermore, if we look into details either base 500% or 450% will result in almost same Eve. It should apply to all mwds, and to signature penalty too. Hence: 1. if you can't hit orbiting stilleto, you wan't be able to do this and after the patch. Same sig/speed ratio. 2. if your stiletto can't catch that speedy garmur, he wan't be able to do this and after the patch. Same speeds bonuses on both. 3. if mwd kiter killing you on your ab, he will be able to do this and after the patch. Difference between ab and mwd is still huge. And the only thing that could change: you want to warp out from far point, but this stiletto/garmur is running to you on full speed to get point. And then let's be honest: Game mechanics already gives free second interval priority to you. You can still warpout if you reach needed 75% even after interceptor is in range and has activated the point. You just have to do this in the same second. Up to 999ms for free(!) from CCP with best wishes. And then you want to save 5-10ms more? Pretty unhonest from interceptor pilot point of view :) Secondly, 450%? -50% for what reason? Why not -5% to have same avarage? And, those -5% will save you 5-10ms. Pretty useless for those, who already lost those free "up to 999ms" to interceptor. Just grow your skill, it will save much more isk.

Stitch Kaneland Trust Doesn't Rust Triumvirate. 215	Posted - 2015.05.05 14:21:43 - [231] - Quote Mike Whiite wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: First up, thanks mates for all the awesome feedback! [ Lets look at some other MWD speeds, across classes (regular / overloaded): Regular Garmur (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 5015 / 7251 > Post 5176 / 7281 Kestrel (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3480 / 5017 > Post 3770 / 5290 Svipul (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3572 / 5107 > Post 3683 / 5129 Orthrus (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 3054 / 4421 > Post 3152 / 4439 Augoror Navy Issue (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1896 / 2719 > Post 1938 / 2705 Ishtar (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 2084 / 3004 > Post 2149 / 3016 Drake (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1316 / 1882 > Post 1356 / 1889 Tornado (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 2077 / 2968 > Post 2141 / 2980 Machariel (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 1994 / 2885 > Post 2058 / 2897 Abaddon (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Pre 896 / 1292 > Post 922 / 1294 We need to look at the entire meta, not just the edge cases. Do I like that Garmur going 13k/s? Not really, but that fit is worth over 2b (including implants) and has made a lot of sacrifices to go that fast Correct me i I'm wrong but what I see= 1) Lower signature penalties 2) Faster MWD's and all the AB's are going faster as well now as a pilot who likes to fly missiles ships, that to my humble opinion have already problems with damage application on many platforms. taking in consideration almost ever ship uses a prop mod. how is this not a direct nerf on missles as a whole, you could just as well have nerfed their explosion radius an exploision velocity. with 10 to 20 %. will torpedo's not fired from extremly bonused hulls every do damage to something that is not a structure or a capital? since you where talking of looking at whole picture. Missiles hit fine with application mods. And before someone chimes in on using precious midslots for application, its called a trade-off. You cant have a huge tank and perfect application at the same time. Ive killed 10mn t3d with a drake or RHML phoon, among plenty of other low sig/fast ships. But i fit for application and lower tank. Still worked fine in most cases. The changes proposed are pretty minor tbh. Guess my svipul will be getting closer to its pre-nerf speed. Lol. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Cleanse Serce Lonesome Capsuleer 34	Posted - 2015.05.05 14:59:00 - [232] - Quote I thought Tiericide was meant to make things easier. I just see wierd names with letters and nombers everywhere, and wierd words like Cold-Cas, propellant, and such... Whatever..
Alexis Nightwish 168	Posted - 2015.05.05 15:38:38 - [233] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: [snip]Lowering the overall bonuses from MWDs is not going to address the kiting issues being brought up in this thread. Stacking, bonuses & reviewing specific hulls are much better ways 'fix' that issue. Please be patient with us =) Alexis Nightwish wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: 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. Yeah but the current meta, (as it relates to speed), sucks! Given that, I like the increase on speed for Afterburners, but I do NOT like the increase on speed for MWDs. EVE is already "Go MWD or go home." If anything, this rework should be used to reduce the speed bonus of MWDs. T1 should be +400%, Officer should be +500%, and everything else in the middle. Please see my above comments. To add to that, we'd rather have a small progression between Meta 0 and Meta 17 modules. Having even a larger difference between new players (using meta 0 & 1 modules) and veterans (using Meta 15 to 17 modules) is not something we consider desirable. Your point about having a small progression up the meta level ladder is a good one, and I agree. However, I strongly disagree with your statement that lowering MWD speeds would not help the meta. Virtually every ship I own has a MWD, because without it, I cannot compete against those who do. The current meta is "Speed wins." Nerfing MWDs would absolutely benefit the game as a whole. I'm not even looking at outlier cases like 13k Garmurs. I'm talking about what is encountered every day. If the spread from +400% to +500% is too large, then simply subtract 100 from the proposed bonuses, resulting in a range from +400% to +420%. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Advenat Bedala Facehoof Out of Sight. 2	Posted - 2015.05.05 15:48:07 - [234] - Quote Hey! What are you doing with Republic fleet/Angel AB and MWD? They'll be worse than fed navy/serpentis in almost all cases. If you don't want to give them more speed give them less capasitor requrements or overload bonus or less mass addition or something else.
Solj RichPopolous Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 125	Posted - 2015.05.05 16:10:38 - [235] - Quote Lady Spank wrote: Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. This. Kiting is already the go-to meta. Of course its the go to meta. Its the only one that requires situational and spatial awareness and just in general brain power. I love fighting kiters as well as being one. Seems like everyone just wants the game to be train for proteus and vindicator and hit approach and f1 with as little brain power needed as possible. This is space if you want things that sit still while you shoot at them go play WoT.
Solj RichPopolous Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 125	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:02:40 - [236] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Quote: With a Gistii A-Type 1/5MN Microwarpdrive fit Garmur (faction, snakes, zor's custom, and max fleet bonuses) in KSpace I'm getting - 8606 m/s Prepatch > 8883 m/s Postpatch 12462 m/s Prepatch > 12514 m/s Postpatch Overloaded and you don't see a problem here?????????????????????????????? I'm having trouble understanding the rage of MWDs?? Maybe no one has figured out that scram rules this game but I'm pretty sure that the MWD bonus with scram applied is still 0%? If the ship is moving that fast he is going to be a pee shooter that can't hurt you or not able to apply any real dps anyway, and that goes for any ship just about. Have to bark at the guys in my group so much about this. FIT A SCRAM. a TS one at that. LEave it overheated and should you have a booster around there you go 17km scram. MWDs are irrelevant unless they are just for running away.
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 767	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:07:02 - [237] - Quote Nice change! The naming goes really well with EvE lore and going back to old naming which was removed to make things easier is a good step to make the game feel more harsh and dark. Also I like that its getting more difficult to apply damage in a turret ship yet again which will push more new players into deciding to fly a Orthurs and makes ship choice easier for them. However I think that lmls need a slight buff to compensate for a few edge cases (like very fast Vagabonds) where full damage cant be applied anymore using a rapid light missile launcher. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Nou Mene Out of Focus Odin's Call 5	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:23:41 - [238] - Quote Fredric Wolf wrote: I feel compact should have worse stats the meta 0 as you need to have a trade off for easier fitting right now everything is better then meta 0 and there are no benefits to fitting these. Meta 0 should be the standard... any other meta should have trade offs...
Solj RichPopolous Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 125	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:27:20 - [239] - Quote Galphii wrote: Uh, is the "compact" 100mn AB going to make it easier to fit those ridiculous 100mn AB tengu fits? Because they need to die. If a tengu is using anything but a deadspace 100mn AB its a joke to begin with and if you can't stop it you have bigger IQ issues that need to be resolved. As far as the whole reason the oversizing prop mod solution works lets analyze it for a second. Speed vs sig radius plus scrams being a non factor. Let's just sit and think hmm are there modules in the game that decrease the speed as well as modules that increase the sig??? No, really I'll wait on you to think this out. Here's a hint there are even ships that get a bonus to these said modules and not just 1 but both at the same time. Sorry your stupid brick ship won't work for this. I know most people get mad if they can't hop in a proteus and sit on top of their target.
Thanatos Marathon Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 443	Posted - 2015.05.05 17:47:32 - [240] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: We need to look at the entire meta, not just the edge cases. A few people are mentioning the entire meta, not just edge cases. Speed creep affects everything.

Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 520	Posted - 2015.05.05 18:57:34 - [241] - Quote In an OGB world, it would be reasonable now to reduce all MWD values across the board by 50, or other similar figure - the choice du jour is either an MWD, or an over-sized AB, rarely do appropriately-sized Afterburners get into that equation, because they are not competitive enough. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/need-for-speed/ Quote: 2007-02-15 15:01 By CCP Tuxford Why don't we like people going really really fast One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Where's CCP TomB when you need him. vOv // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2037	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:17:02 - [242] - Quote Why not just nerf speed links now if they are admitted to be a key problem? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 521	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:30:22 - [243] - Quote Zappity wrote: Why not just nerf speed links now if they are admitted to be a key problem? Then the whole concept will need to be reviewed with respect to other bonuses. Here's a point-by-point disambiguation article by Suitonia on the matter - https://suitonia.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/6/ // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Arla Sarain 420	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:31:14 - [244] - Quote Zappity wrote: Why not just nerf speed links now if they are admitted to be a key problem? Kinda wish they just dunked speed all together. +70% for ABs and 140% for MWDs (and lower sig bloom). But that would require reducing range of a lot of things.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2038	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:37:27 - [245] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Zappity wrote: Why not just nerf speed links now if they are admitted to be a key problem? Then the whole concept will need to be reviewed with respect to other bonuses. Here's a point-by-point disambiguation article by Suitonia on the matter - https://suitonia.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/6/ I love the picture in the article - ships hugging the station. Please give links a weapons timer to stop gate and station hugging. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 521	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:40:09 - [246] - Quote Zappity wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Zappity wrote: Why not just nerf speed links now if they are admitted to be a key problem? Then the whole concept will need to be reviewed with respect to other bonuses. Here's a point-by-point disambiguation article by Suitonia on the matter - https://suitonia.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/6/ I love the picture in the article - ships hugging the station. Probably hostile to each other too. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1152	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:46:19 - [247] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: In an OGB world, it would be reasonable now to reduce all MWD values across the board by 50, or other similar figure - the choice du jour is either an MWD, or an over-sized AB, rarely do appropriately-sized Afterburners get into that equation, because they are not competitive enough. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/need-for-speed/ Quote: 2007-02-15 15:01 By CCP Tuxford Why don't we like people going really really fast One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Where's CCP TomB when you need him. vOv 8 years on .. none of those things were implemented .. poor amarr... 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
Soleil Fournier Ultimatum. The Bastion 37	Posted - 2015.05.05 20:43:42 - [248] - Quote The last thing MWDs need is a speed boost. MWDs are all ready a requirement for most ships in most situations, which doesn't give us a choice when fitting. It's either use a MWD or suffer the concequences. MWDs need a nerf, ABs need a small buff.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1152	Posted - 2015.05.05 20:50:23 - [249] - Quote we shouldn't have too fly sansha ships too get decent use out of AB'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
Maldiro Selkurk CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X 228	Posted - 2015.05.05 20:50:32 - [250] - Quote The meat and potatos value changes i'll take a wait and see attitude but the 500 word long names are **** right out of the box. Keep the names that mean something like 'enduring', 'compact' and 'restrained' and dump the rest of the title changes. Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Oktura Ostus Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.05.05 21:02:20 - [251] - Quote Soleil Fournier wrote: MWDs need a nerf, ABs need a small buff. I don't understand. One day they say 10mn AB svipul is overpowered, please nerf it. In another day they say AB need small buff. If CCP buff it, then we will ask to nerf svipuls again? Everything has own role now: MWD - null sec PvP. AB - low sec FW PvP, PvE oversized AB: for pew-pew-how-to-turn-this-brick PvP Why do you think it should be fixed? Imho, having huge signature, hence more incoming dps, and at the same time having risk to be scrambled and stopped is a fair price for speed bost from mwd.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 522	Posted - 2015.05.05 21:54:09 - [252] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: In an OGB world, it would be reasonable now to reduce all MWD values across the board by 50, or other similar figure - the choice du jour is either an MWD, or an over-sized AB, rarely do appropriately-sized Afterburners get into that equation, because they are not competitive enough. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/need-for-speed/ Quote: 2007-02-15 15:01 By CCP Tuxford Why don't we like people going really really fast One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE. Where's CCP TomB when you need him. vOv 8 years on .. none of those things were implemented .. poor amarr... Armour EM resistances actually were reduced from 60% to 50% since those stagnant times. Khanid MK2 also happened I think, but overall yes, lack of brawling engagements is disappointing today. Mass-reducing modules were done away with, along with new stacking penalties introduced for speed mods. RIP Nanuphoon // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 162	Posted - 2015.05.05 21:58:11 - [253] - Quote Am i get it right, would new Meta levels added? -1 if it so.
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1539	Posted - 2015.05.05 22:47:46 - [254] - Quote Looks great, but death to speed creep, seriously please do not buff MWD speed boost percentages. Nerf them if anything I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 530	Posted - 2015.05.05 23:41:11 - [255] - Quote What about Nerfing Rapid Deployment ganglink by 10%? This will more or less cancel out the MWD speed increase on the highest tier. I know this is no-where close to what links need, but would be a good start anyway. Rapid Deployment II from 7% to 6.3% Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Skir Skor Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 16	Posted - 2015.05.05 23:50:55 - [256] - Quote Links do not neeed a light touch here and there but a major revamp. I'm all in favour of Rapid Deployment II dropping from 7% to 6.3% but I'd rather CCP did the job in one big update rather than "fixing" it piece by piece due to a few complaints in a forum thread.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1154	Posted - 2015.05.06 00:18:35 - [257] - Quote Skir Skor wrote: Links do not neeed a light touch here and there but a major revamp. I'm all in favour of Rapid Deployment II dropping from 7% to 6.3% but I'd rather CCP did the job in one big update rather than "fixing" it piece by piece due to a few complaints in a forum thread. part of the problem with links are the big bonuses given by skills and implants rather than by ships or mods. 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
Stitch Kaneland Trust Doesn't Rust Triumvirate. 217	Posted - 2015.05.06 01:14:48 - [258] - Quote Oktura Ostus wrote: Soleil Fournier wrote: MWDs need a nerf, ABs need a small buff. I don't understand. One day they say 10mn AB svipul is overpowered, please nerf it. In another day they say AB need small buff. If CCP buff it, then we will ask to nerf svipuls again? Everything has own role now: MWD - null sec PvP. AB - low sec FW PvP, PvE oversized AB: for pew-pew-how-to-turn-this-brick PvP Why do you think it should be fixed? Imho, having huge signature, hence more incoming dps, and at the same time having risk to be scrambled and stopped is a fair price for speed bost from mwd. The answer you are looking for, is in the second sentence you typed. Quote: One day they say 10mn AB svipul is overpowered, please nerf it. In another day they say AB need small buff. 10mn. A prop mod class higher than its intended class range. A 1mn Svipul is vastly inferior to a 10mn svipul. 10mn give you close to 1mn MWD speed, without the sig bloom, and make you immune to scrams. And sometimes, is more cap efficient than the MWD equivalent. Yea, you get the big agility nerf, but it normally can be countered pretty easily in the fit, or with implants/links. Your view on how prop mods work is very limited. An AB in nullsec can make you extremely hard to kill (if flown right), but is best paired with a MWD. MWD for speed, AB for range control once scrammed. MWD in LS when setup for kiting, can make for a lot of easy kills against a/b fit frigs/cruisers. Yea, its risky if you do get scrammed, but, that's why you have neuts or web. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Mario Putzo 1409	Posted - 2015.05.06 02:26:27 - [259] - Quote That 500mn MWD Proph tho.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 135	Posted - 2015.05.06 05:28:58 - [260] - Quote I really, strongly dislike the MWD changes. This creates tiers if anything. Also indirectly giving frigates and cruisers more speed is just... really? Why not just delete battlecruisers and battleships from the game? All the MWD line really needs is: Tech 1: Cheap Meta A: Easy to fit Meta B: Lower sig bloom penalty Tech 2: Lower cap penalty (much lower than currently as right now the higher activation cost negates the lower cap penalty benefit, hence why no one really uses T2)

Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 136	Posted - 2015.05.06 05:49:37 - [261] - Quote Solj RichPopolous wrote: If the ship is moving that fast he is going to be a pee shooter that can't hurt you or not able to apply any real dps anyway, and that goes for any ship just about. Umm... missiles damage application isn't affected by how fast the ship firing it is going, only the speed of the ship its intending to hit.
Solj RichPopolous Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness 125	Posted - 2015.05.06 09:39:03 - [262] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Solj RichPopolous wrote: If the ship is moving that fast he is going to be a pee shooter that can't hurt you or not able to apply any real dps anyway, and that goes for any ship just about. Umm... missiles damage application isn't affected by how fast the ship firing it is going, only the speed of the ship its intending to hit. Who cares about missiles? Do they actually damage things? Edit: I guess im not being fair to the rest of EVE and only thinking of my play style which obsoletes missile damage application. I guess for your average player this could be problematic.
Madeleine Lemmont Divide et Impera DE 22	Posted - 2015.05.06 11:41:30 - [263] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: I like the module teiracide project as a whole but I don't like that it has been leaving manufacture-able T1 items in an all but useless state. Me too. Compact -> Lower Fitting needs but same mastereffect as standard T1. recent Meta3/4 -> much higher master effect but should have a bit higher fitting needs than standard T1 too.
Bagrat Skalski Poseidaon 8042	Posted - 2015.05.06 12:46:39 - [264] - Quote Monopropellant is too hard on eyes. Low-impulse is better. Custom ship skins \| Since 2014 \| Character creator style "repaint" \| Bring back the dream
erg cz Tribal Core 237	Posted - 2015.05.06 13:12:46 - [265] - Quote Renaming is crap, IMHO. First - names are not getting simplier, they are getting more complicated. Second - I can not use 10mn mask in EFT tool to get both afterburner and MWD. Now if I want to play around with fitting, I can write "10MN" into search column and I will get both MWD and AB so I can switch them easely. With 5xMN reserved for MWD this will not work any more. Same with eve central or any other tool, where you want to see all prop modules for certain class in one list. Rebalance prop modules - yes, renaming - 'no'. Big 'no'
Stitch Kaneland Trust Doesn't Rust Triumvirate. 218	Posted - 2015.05.06 14:01:12 - [266] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: I really, strongly dislike the MWD changes. This creates tiers if anything. Also indirectly giving frigates and cruisers more speed is just... really? Why not just delete battlecruisers and battleships from the game? All the MWD line really needs is: Tech 1: Cheap Meta A: Easy to fit Meta B: Lower sig bloom penalty Tech 2: Lower cap penalty (much lower than currently as right now the higher activation cost negates the lower cap penalty benefit, hence why no one really uses T2) Well technically all mwds are getting buffed. Not just frig/cruiser mwd. So BC/BS will be faster too. But still in the same spot they are now. So its cancels out. BCs are BS have other tools available to get engagements without having to go faster. Not sure why people keep asking for speed buffs to bcs/bs. Did we forget nano phoons/canes? I personally dont want to see 2500m/s phoons flying around as it seems silly. And with people like Chessur making good use of nano bhal/geddon, i dont see a reason to arbitrarily buff bc/bs speed to keep up with smaller ships. BCs are damaged, because they have no way to do anything to cruisers in most cases. They lack projection. If they have a way to reach out and hit cruisers, then speed becomes a non-issue. Once BCs become useful again, then BS will have their role back at killing BCs. If BS become popular again, then cruisers/HACS can counter them fairly easily. Ship food chain is complete and working as intended. For now though, BCs get killed by kite cruisers very easily (unless mjd fit) and just screws up 2 classes of ships. This started after they rebalanced all the cruisers, making them faster to the point BCs struggle to keep up against the slowest ones. Give BCs a projection role bonus, and that might level the playing field a bit. Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 188	Posted - 2015.05.06 14:13:34 - [267] - Quote 4MN MWD 50MN MWD 600MN MWD There's a nerf to small micros (which I admit wouldn't be needed if the combination of links and Snakes was nerfed), and a buff to large micros, which should make BS pilots happy.
X Gallentius Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 2899	Posted - 2015.05.06 14:40:10 - [268] - Quote erg cz wrote: Renaming is crap, IMHO. First - names are not getting simplier, they are getting more complicated. Second - I can not use 10mn mask in EFT tool to get both afterburner and MWD. Why would you want to? I hate accidentally clicking on an AB when I should have clicked on a MWD. Name Change +1. Sucks when you install the wrong prop mod type in-game. JUSTK is recruiting.
Ms Michigan Aviation Professionals for EVE Providence Initiative 60	Posted - 2015.05.06 16:26:43 - [269] - Quote CCP: Like others have said - my votes... 1) Do not increase the top MWD speeds, if anything nerf the lower ends. I personally would like to see the whole scale dropped to make Afterburners more feasible. or 1a) Buff Afterburners!!!!!! - However I second what many are saying about speed VS. Server ticks. I think grid speed should be dropped overall. IF you look at the impact of boosters, drugs, Wormhole effects, High-end modules/ships....we have enough speed. Kiting is the meta already just a tad too much. (ISHTARs online....HALF of that equation is speed versus....the other half was the sentries.) Just a thought!!! 2) Fix T2 MWDs to make them feasible again. 3) I like the new 5mn scheme and the new modules. 4) CAPITAL SIZED PROP MODS!
Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 340	Posted - 2015.05.06 22:01:08 - [270] - Quote Solj RichPopolous wrote: Lady Spank wrote: Gorski Car wrote: Nice to see that t2 mwds are actually faster now. But really do we need more speed creep in eve? it feels like ships are super fast right now and that creates some problems in my opinion. In a vacum they might be okish whats most important is what you guys are planning to do with links since they heavily affect this as well. For certain ships these changes might be terrifying though. Garmurs doing 10k m/s or stilettos burning 100km and tackeling you before you can lock them. This. Kiting is already the go-to meta. Of course its the go to meta. Its the only one that requires situational and spatial awareness and just in general brain power. I love fighting kiters as well as being one. Seems like everyone just wants the game to be train for proteus and vindicator and hit approach and f1 with as little brain power needed as possible. This is space if you want things that sit still while you shoot at them go play WoT. Forgive me but I don't pay to win. My scram doesn't reach 17km. I get 11km. Clearly your piloting requires "superior brain power."

Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 340	Posted - 2015.05.06 22:03:34 - [271] - Quote Zappity wrote: Why not just nerf speed links now if they are admitted to be a key problem? Finally some sense!!
Cleanse Serce Lonesome Capsuleer 34	Posted - 2015.05.06 23:25:05 - [272] - Quote Any kind of link is a problem. Why nerf link exclusivly and only for speed ? The progression thing is quite awsome, just lower it for Velocity Bonus, like idk : 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 495 5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 500 5MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 500 5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 500 5MN Microwarpdrive II : Velocity Bonus 505 5MN Digital Booster Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 505 Federation Navy 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 507 Shadow Serpentis 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 507 Republic Fleet 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 507 Domination 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 507 Coreli C-Type 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 509 Gistii C-Type 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 509 Coreli B-Type 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 511 Gistii B-Type 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 511 Coreli A-Type 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 513 Gistii A-Type 5MN Microwarpdrive : Velocity Bonus 513 Or raise Activation Cost, lower Cycle.. idk. But links aren't the issue at all.
Lug Muad'Dib Wise Humans Sword 44	Posted - 2015.05.06 23:43:34 - [273] - Quote Good job, i love this tiericide. And i don't unerstant what 2% speed buff for deadspace mwd will change it will almost make no diferrence in real combat situation.. D-Scan immunity is dumb.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3284	Posted - 2015.05.07 00:23:41 - [274] - Quote Lug Muad'Dib wrote: Good job, i love this tiericide. And i don't unerstant what 2% speed buff for deadspace mwd will change it will almost make no diferrence in real combat situation.. you are looking at one number. all attributes combined make them the better module. if all you want is speed its probably not worth it how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Crimsons Storm Pseudonym. Shadow Cartel 13	Posted - 2015.05.07 03:39:56 - [275] - Quote Quote: Goals of Module Tiericide - Reduce unnecessary complexity So increasing the amount of propulsion modules by way of giving us more modules with differing benefits and at the same time renaming some of the subtypes, you create less complexity ? CCP logic at it finest I applaud some of the changes...i however disagree to the notion that you are making it simpler
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2437	Posted - 2015.05.07 05:58:28 - [276] - Quote Ms Michigan wrote: 1) Do not increase the top MWD speeds, if anything nerf the lower ends. I personally would like to see the whole scale dropped to make Afterburners more feasible. or 1a) Buff Afterburners!!!!!! - However I second what many are saying about speed VS. Server ticks. I think grid speed should be dropped overall. IF you look at the impact of boosters, drugs, Wormhole effects, High-end modules/ships....we have enough speed. Kiting is the meta already just a tad too much. (ISHTARs online....HALF of that equation is speed versus....the other half was the sentries.) Just a thought!!! Howabout add something to close the gap a bit? Doesn't need to be a new module type, instead I propose prop mod scripts: Afterburner script: increases speed a lot but greatly increases capacitor consumption to an amount higher than MWD consumes MWD script: reduces speed a lot, but reduces sig penalty a lot more A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 618	Posted - 2015.05.07 07:49:05 - [277] - Quote Thank you so much for making the deadspace ABs all the same speed. I am sure the other folks who chose them based on the speed bonus are all cheering. Really. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 669	Posted - 2015.05.07 08:36:52 - [278] - Quote Why do the Gistii and Corellii MWD's have the same speed bonus? This is pure homogenization of those two lines of modules. One should give very high speed with higher cap consumption The other should give T2 speed with heavily reduced drawbacks (v.low sig penalty and capacitor penalty) This way the Deadspace modules would have differentiation.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 356	Posted - 2015.05.07 08:57:13 - [279] - Quote Wait wut... You want to Differentiate and OFFER CHOICE and the whole "fitting vs speed" thing was a valid choice and now it isnt? Seems eeehm, Counter productive...
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 618	Posted - 2015.05.07 09:07:57 - [280] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: Why do the Gistii and Corellii MWD's have the same speed bonus? This is pure homogenization of those two lines of modules. One should give very high speed with higher cap consumption The other should give T2 speed with heavily reduced drawbacks (v.low sig penalty and capacitor penalty) This way the Deadspace modules would have differentiation. Also the ABs are homogenized, when it was a much bigger range on ABs than MWDs before. It is like they went with the difference that most people cared least about as the major distinction. This aggravates me. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp

Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 538	Posted - 2015.05.07 14:38:51 - [281] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Ms Michigan wrote: 1) Do not increase the top MWD speeds, if anything nerf the lower ends. I personally would like to see the whole scale dropped to make Afterburners more feasible. or 1a) Buff Afterburners!!!!!! - However I second what many are saying about speed VS. Server ticks. I think grid speed should be dropped overall. IF you look at the impact of boosters, drugs, Wormhole effects, High-end modules/ships....we have enough speed. Kiting is the meta already just a tad too much. (ISHTARs online....HALF of that equation is speed versus....the other half was the sentries.) Just a thought!!! Howabout add something to close the gap a bit? Doesn't need to be a new module type, instead I propose prop mod scripts: Afterburner script: increases speed a lot but greatly increases capacitor consumption to an amount higher than MWD consumes MWD script: reduces speed a lot, but reduces sig penalty a lot more The 3/5MN and 30/50MN mid-tier Afterburners - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=419044&find=unread P workable soluation. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Arla Sarain 430	Posted - 2015.05.07 15:47:10 - [282] - Quote AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy.
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 229	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:24:23 - [283] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Except, y'know, that removes the fitting decision.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1019	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:25:08 - [284] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. ABs got a bunch of scenarios in which they are used, and they are by far not limited to FW. They're used for solo, for spidertanks, for Fleets. Bhaalgorns fit ABs to ensure speed tracking against dreads supported by not reliably jammed lokis. They are amazing for mirror matchups and are frequently used near gates/holes/stations or other points where an orthrus isn't autowin against pmuch anything. There is no lack of need for ABs, but mwds scale a lot better for small gangs, especially in FW. 5 tanky tristans are bad compared to 5 very fast and ganky tristans, that though is not a sign that something with ABs is wrong.
Arla Sarain 431	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:28:04 - [285] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Except, y'know, that removes the fitting decision. Fit X to win Fit Y to lose Fitting decisions Hurrah.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 539	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:38:18 - [286] - Quote Masao Kurata wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Except, y'know, that removes the fitting decision. So two new types of charges to carry in the cargo hold. /not sure Then again, it could keep nanugaffers in check, and limit the length, and the number of such engagements that one can undertake if consumption is anything like the Entosis Link, yo. Brawling paradise! pâ+a++a¦ê+ä-£a¦êa++n+ë // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2437	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:44:57 - [287] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Howabout combine my script idea and your fuel idea, leave in fitting decisions but keep them broad so that one choice doesn't dramatically narrow a pilot's possibilities: AB without fuel: +135% speed AB with fuel: +210% speed MWD without fuel: +325% speed, +325% sig radius MWD with fuel: +500% speed, +500% sig radius A Caldari is just a Gallente who begged to have their civil liberties taken away.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 539	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:47:42 - [288] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Howabout combine my script idea and your fuel idea, leave in fitting decisions but keep them broad so that one choice doesn't dramatically narrow a pilot's possibilities: AB without fuel: +135% speed AB with fuel: +210% speed MWD without fuel: +325% speed, +325% sig radius MWD with fuel: +500% speed, +500% sig radius Fuel AB is OP. AB script shouldn't consume fuel, while MWD scripts should only work with fuel under such a system. Speed boost amounts for said scripts could be left as currently is. vOv // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Arla Sarain 433	Posted - 2015.05.07 16:55:16 - [289] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Except, y'know, that removes the fitting decision. So two new types of charges to carry in the cargo hold. Not if the fuel is strontium
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 41	Posted - 2015.05.07 18:05:04 - [290] - Quote What is the sence of adding new types of MWD's? Two t1 modofications of module were totally enought. Give -20% to cap to all standard (non-faction) MWD's, so there will no need in one extra module type.

Ransu Asanari Powder and Ball Alchemists Union Mordus Angels 225	Posted - 2015.05.07 18:53:56 - [291] - Quote Some quick points about the changes I like: 5MN/50MN/500MN change is fine. Good to distinguish between MWD and AB, and faster to search for the size you want in the market. Happy to see the old-school flavor names coming back (Cold-Gas ArcJets and Y-T8 Overcharged Hydocarbon especially) in some form. Some concerns and things I'd like to see changed or looked at: I don't think the Meta level AB/MWD need any speed increase. I feel comfortable with a slight increase for the Faction and Deadspace level modules, but a general increase in speed for all prop mods seems unnecessary and definitely promotes speed creep. Fast ships are already extremely fast, and this will just compound it. When you look at weapon systems that have velocity in their damage formula like missiles, this change is basically another overall nerf to missile damage application, which is already extremely poor in some cases. I would very much like to see a general increase in the amount of cycles it is possible to overheat a Microwarpdrive before you risk burning it out. I can't tell from any of the updated stats in the Google Doc if this will be changed. In-game we only have the Heat Damage and Structure Hitpoints columns, but I'm not 100% sure on the formula for the damage - but a 1MN and 10MN Microwarp drive both have the same amount of Structure Hitpoints (40HP). I find that you can really overheat a 1MN MWD for 2-3 cycles at most before you risk burning it out, and that's with Thermodynamics 5. If you go into a cycle where you're already at 70% damage, you have a really high chance of burning it out after the cycle completes. I'd like to see more module HP added in general to give us more ability to heat, especially with lower skill levels; and either (or additionally) halve the module cycle time and the capacitor time, so we can shut the heat off faster when we don't need it, and better micromanage our heat. That way when we miss a cycle turning off the heat because we're doing so many other things, it won't be as catastrophic. In addition to the above, varying the HP and overheat levels could be another valuable choice when looking at the modules. The "Enduring" level could have more module HP and take less heat damage, for example. Or it could be a faction choice. Some ships like the T3 Destroyers already get a 5%/Level reduction in module heat damage so this would have to be balanced to not make this overpowered, but it would be a valuable choice when choosing modules. Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 542	Posted - 2015.05.08 04:19:34 - [292] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Masao Kurata wrote: Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. Except, y'know, that removes the fitting decision. So two new types of charges to carry in the cargo hold. Not if the fuel is strontium Stront producer detected. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 948	Posted - 2015.05.08 07:06:53 - [293] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: AB and MWD should just be combined into 1 modules, you add fuel to the module and it behaves like an MWD, otherwise its an AB. Then you wouldn't need to rename anything, speed creep wouldn't be such a problem, the enormous disparity between the two modules would be gone and severe lack of a reason to actually use an AB for anything outside of FW plexs would be irrelevant. The fuel wouldn't have to be a script and could actually be consumable which is more stuff out of the economy. I have been advocating this for years. Too bad it won't ever happen. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 88	Posted - 2015.05.08 10:16:33 - [294] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Bring back some of the old school flavor names (Cold-Gas!) Why would you go from the old random system to the system we how now that's all streamlined on naming which helps new and old players work out what is what then decide its a cool idea to just be like... "hay guys you know when we made it easy to work out which is the best mod from its name.... well we just put all the names in a random number generator and this is what it is now... o but we are only changing it for MWD's" ****** change is ******.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2045	Posted - 2015.05.08 11:16:37 - [295] - Quote Tappits wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Bring back some of the old school flavor names (Cold-Gas!) Why would you go from the old random system to the system we how now that's all streamlined on naming which helps new and old players work out what is what then decide its a cool idea to just be like... "hay guys you know when we made it easy to work out which is the best mod from its name.... well we just put all the names in a random number generator and this is what it is now... o but we are only changing it for MWD's" ****** change is ******. They are not only changing it for these modules. All module groups are being rebalanced and renamed. The prop mods names were just awful. Far too bland compared to the old goodness. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 41	Posted - 2015.05.08 12:05:01 - [296] - Quote Ransu Asanari wrote: Some quick points about the changes I like: I don't think the Meta level AB/MWD need any speed increase. I feel comfortable with a slight increase for the Faction and Deadspace level modules, but a general increase in speed for all prop mods seems unnecessary and definitely promotes speed creep. Fast ships are already extremely fast, and this will just compound it. When you look at weapon systems that have velocity in their damage formula like missiles, this change is basically another overall nerf to missile damage application, which is already extremely poor in some cases. Agree, speed creep ia already too big. On a caldary ship 5% will give nothing, but on minmatar interceptor it will a big bonus under boosts.
Mystical Might V0LTA Triumvirate. 186	Posted - 2015.05.08 12:55:55 - [297] - Quote Lidia Caderu wrote: Ransu Asanari wrote: Some quick points about the changes I like: I don't think the Meta level AB/MWD need any speed increase. I feel comfortable with a slight increase for the Faction and Deadspace level modules, but a general increase in speed for all prop mods seems unnecessary and definitely promotes speed creep. Fast ships are already extremely fast, and this will just compound it. When you look at weapon systems that have velocity in their damage formula like missiles, this change is basically another overall nerf to missile damage application, which is already extremely poor in some cases. Agree, speed creep ia already too big. On a caldary ship 5% will give nothing, but on minmatar interceptor it will a big bonus under boosts. So nerf the minmatar interceptor downwards just a tad bit, to keep the speeds the same?
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 41	Posted - 2015.05.08 12:56:33 - [298] - Quote Mystical Might wrote: Lidia Caderu wrote: Ransu Asanari wrote: Some quick points about the changes I like: I don't think the Meta level AB/MWD need any speed increase. I feel comfortable with a slight increase for the Faction and Deadspace level modules, but a general increase in speed for all prop mods seems unnecessary and definitely promotes speed creep. Fast ships are already extremely fast, and this will just compound it. When you look at weapon systems that have velocity in their damage formula like missiles, this change is basically another overall nerf to missile damage application, which is already extremely poor in some cases. Agree, speed creep ia already too big. On a caldary ship 5% will give nothing, but on minmatar interceptor it will a big bonus under boosts. So nerf the minmatar interceptor downwards just a tad bit, to keep the speeds the same? What if I have AB fit?
Sieonigh Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh 46	Posted - 2015.05.08 19:29:16 - [299] - Quote i feel the republic fleet, domination and the gist ABs are getting a RAW deal here Module..................................................type..............meta......PG......CPU.....CAP cost......speed boost.....overload Federation Navy 100MN Afterburner.......Faction........8 (+1)...625......55........240 (-80)............145 (+4).............50 Shadow Serpentis 100MN Afterburner...Faction..........8 (+1)...625......55........240 (-80)............145 (+4).............50 Republic Fleet 100MN Afterburner..........Faction..........8.........688......50........320 (+79)...........145 (+1).............50 Domination 100MN Afterburner...............Faction..........8.........688......50........320 (+79)...........145 (+1).............50 Core C-Type 100MN Afterburner.........Deadspace.....10 (-1)....625......58........240 (-1)...............150.....................50 Gist C-Type 100MN Afterburner...........Deadspace.....10 (-1)....750......50........320......................150 (-3).............50 this pattern is consistent with all higher meta ABs and all sizes as you can see here the cap cost for the RF, domi and gist have been majorly nerfed while the galeti equivalent has been buffed, both are now the same speed with the RF/ Domi one only being 5 less CPU benifit. so now its gonna be a no brainer when it comes to choosing faction and deadspace ABs make RF/domi/ gist AB faster to their meta counterparts for it to be worth the cap cost, otherwise they will not be worth it.
Little Kicks Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 15	Posted - 2015.05.08 21:52:18 - [300] - Quote Lochiel wrote: How about having the order of the name be nMN [Modifier Name] [Flavor Name] [MWD\|AB] So that when I search for "5MN Restrained" I get exactly the module I was looking for? I agree with moving flavor names towards the back. They seem unnecessary, but at least keep them out of the way.

Kione Keikira Sleepless Guardians Unreachable 0	Posted - 2015.05.08 22:53:21 - [301] - Quote The fact that the only reason to choose between Shadow Serpentis and Federation Navy modules is cost should be changed. Give them some sort of difference to make there be a case where the other is bought. Master of being misunderstood.
Lucas Quaan Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 86	Posted - 2015.05.08 23:52:16 - [302] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Federation Navy 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 28; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 28; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 80 (+20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Domination 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 80 (+20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] ... Federation Navy 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 625; CPU 55; Activation 240 (-80); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 625; CPU 55; Activation 240 (-80); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Republic Fleet 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 320 (+79); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Domination 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 320 (+79); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] I feel like these two groups could use some tweaking. With the velocity bonus being the same you sort of shafted the RF/Domi versions. The CPU diff is really too little to matter on the cruiser/BS level when you consider the fact that FN/SS use both less grid AND cap. Why would you ever pick the other two? I guess it can sort of balance out for frigs, but I think you need to keep some of the speed diff too, tbh. Scale back FN/SS to 140% would be my suggestion to keep the trade-off.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 949	Posted - 2015.05.09 03:47:30 - [303] - Quote Lucas Quaan wrote: CCP Larrikin wrote: Federation Navy 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 28; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 50; CPU 28; Activation 60 (-20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Republic Fleet 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 80 (+20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Domination 10MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 55; CPU 25; Activation 80 (+20); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] ... Federation Navy 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 625; CPU 55; Activation 240 (-80); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Shadow Serpentis 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8 (+1); Powergrid 625; CPU 55; Activation 240 (-80); Velocity Bonus 145 (+4)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Republic Fleet 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 320 (+79); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Domination 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 8; Powergrid 688; CPU 50; Activation 320 (+79); Velocity Bonus 145 (+1)%; Overload Bonus 50%] I feel like these two groups could use some tweaking. With the velocity bonus being the same you sort of shafted the RF/Domi versions. The CPU diff is really too little to matter on the cruiser/BS level when you consider the fact that FN/SS use both less grid AND cap. Why would you ever pick the other two? I guess it can sort of balance out for frigs, but I think you need to keep some of the speed diff too, tbh. Scale back FN/SS to 140% would be my suggestion to keep the trade-off. The only reason I used RF and Domination afterburners before was because they used less cap. Seems really obnoxious to shaft them like that. The old split of "fuel efficient" versus "more speed" made perfect sense. Having one use more powergrid and the other use more CPU makes sense too. But, higher capacitor consumption needs something to balance it out versus the counterpart module. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Sieonigh Rim Collection RC Sorry We're In Your Space Eh 47	Posted - 2015.05.09 12:51:12 - [304] - Quote Module..................................................type..........meta.....PG......CPU....CAP cost......speed boost.....overload Federation Navy 500MN Micro.....Faction.....8 (+2).....1250.....83.....270.....-10 (+4).....470 (-19).....512 (+12) .....50 Shadow Serpentis 500MN Micro.....Faction.....8 (+2).....1250.....83.....270.....-10 (+4).....470 (-19).....512 (+12).....50 Republic Fleet 500MN Micro.....Faction.....8.....1375.....75.....320 (-4).....-10 (+1).....450 (-17).....512 (+12).....50 Domination 500MN Micro.....Faction.....8.....1375.....75.....320 (-4).....-10 (+1).....450 (-17).....512 (+12).....50 Core C-Type 500MN Micro.....Deadspace.....10 (-1).....1250.....87.....320 (-4).....-7 (+1).....430 (-3).....514 (+14).....50 Gist C-Type 500MN Micro.....Deadspace....10 (-1).....1500.....75.....270.....-7 (+1).....440 (-4).....514 (+14).....50
Chance Ravinne WiNGSPAN Delivery Services 218	Posted - 2015.05.10 03:10:41 - [305] - Quote I'm still of the opinion that the names should be formatted in some kind of consistent way: (FLUFF name) (PROPERTY) (X MN) Afterburner/Microwarp Drive Right now you have some modules starting with "1MN" and ending with "Afterburner" and others with these two right next to each other. If there is a hierarchy it isn't clear, and some people are going to still search "1MN Afterburner" and miss results because of this formatting. You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 556	Posted - 2015.05.10 06:05:23 - [306] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: I'm still of the opinion that the names should be formatted in some kind of consistent way: (FLUFF name) (PROPERTY) (X MN) Afterburner/Microwarp Drive Right now you have some modules starting with "1MN" and ending with "Afterburner" and others with these two right next to each other. If there is a hierarchy it isn't clear, and some people are going to still search "1MN Afterburner" and miss results because of this formatting. Yess. (a+ç -á-¦ -ƒ+ä-£ -í-¦)a+ç // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1409	Posted - 2015.05.10 06:54:46 - [307] - Quote Chance Ravinne wrote: I'm still of the opinion that the names should be formatted in some kind of consistent way: (FLUFF name) (PROPERTY) (X MN) Afterburner/Microwarp Drive Right now you have some modules starting with "1MN" and ending with "Afterburner" and others with these two right next to each other. If there is a hierarchy it isn't clear, and some people are going to still search "1MN Afterburner" and miss results because of this formatting. Would make sense, especially considering that all the modules except for the T1 meta versions have their explicative text bits in front of the class numeration. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 359	Posted - 2015.05.10 08:07:05 - [308] - Quote This would be a non-issue if there would be a fuzzy search ... I'm my own NPC alt.
Henry Plantgenet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2015.05.10 13:24:32 - [309] - Quote yay a bonus to all the ******* kiters in the world with this speed bonus. can't you go nerf kiters instead?
DetKhord Saisio Seniors Clan 80	Posted - 2015.05.10 13:24:37 - [310] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Goals of Module Tiericide Reduce unnecessary complexity Provide meaningful options within the module set Changes Give a speed bonus to higher meta Microwarpdrives Renaming MWDs to 5MN, 50MN and 500MN Bring back some of the old school flavor names (Cold-Gas!) Differentiate Officer mods from Deadspace mods Fix some flavor issues with Faction mods Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "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" KISS = keep it simple stupid The first reason is... If limited and * equal compact... why not just remove the extra * and just make them all limited. Same for experimental and prototype equaling enduring; just remove the longer term and call all the names from that grouping prototype. The second reason is players are already used to the names limited and prototype. Search fields and bookmarks and your wiki would require yet another ridiculous, unnecessary update. The third reason is adding an extra name just for a namesake is not needed and increases obscurity. ex: "Upgraded 1MN Microwarpdrive I" become "5MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive"... Ok, so simply call it "5MN Upgraded Microwarpdrive I" or maybe "5MN Enduring Microwarpdrive" (if you have to go with the enduring/compact changes).

Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 279	Posted - 2015.05.11 00:48:11 - [311] - Quote Henry Plantgenet wrote: yay a bonus to all the ******* kiters in the world with this speed bonus. can't you go nerf kiters instead? This cannot be echoed or said enough in this thread. One of the biggest complaints about the game presently is that the ship meta is stale and brittle, and a good part of this is because speed is king. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 953	Posted - 2015.05.11 04:01:52 - [312] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Henry Plantgenet wrote: yay a bonus to all the ******* kiters in the world with this speed bonus. can't you go nerf kiters instead? This cannot be echoed or said enough in this thread. One of the biggest complaints about the game presently is that the ship meta is stale and brittle, and a good part of this is because speed is king. Speed will always be king, so long as it gives massive tactical AND operational advantages. CCP should really be taking a hard look at re-balancing tactical level (on-grid) fights - making sure there is a place for all six ship classes. Slowing the faster classes down some and increasing the warp-to range to 200km would help a great deal. Then they can start looking at the operational level - how people get to the grid to fight. How quickly reinforcements can arrive, etc. Just maybe, if they get the above right, they might even have a chance of getting the strategic level properly adjusted - i.e. why people fight. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 194	Posted - 2015.05.11 08:45:04 - [313] - Quote Go post in the CSM fora about the stale meta.
Fourteen Maken The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Enemy Spotted. 152	Posted - 2015.05.11 19:37:18 - [314] - Quote I'd like to see a super fast anti-kite MWD for burning down and tackling kiters with extreme speed and extreme cap usage (but no cap penalty) so it can only be used in bursts. Maybe a built in penalty on using capbooster to stop kiters abusing it. Another MWD for kiters which would be slower than the current meta and another with low fitting and cap usage for use by tight fits, and ships with cap issues: especially amarr, and snipers who just need it to keep range against ab fit brawlers.
Justin Cody Tri-gun 263	Posted - 2015.05.12 00:54:09 - [315] - Quote Keikaku Intensifies This might have interesting implications for sansha ships. I am taking a wait and see approach. T2 now has reasons to exist. So far so good. Small tweaks are good. Be prepared to adjust every 24 hours though due to unforeseen keikaku.
Justin Cody Tri-gun 263	Posted - 2015.05.12 00:56:49 - [316] - Quote Kione Keikira wrote: The fact that the only reason to choose between Shadow Serpentis and Federation Navy modules is cost should be changed. Give them some sort of difference to make there be a case where the other is bought. agreed. Pirate modules ought to offer a dangerous edge...like more overheat bonus Navy modules should be more robust (10% less heat generation) or something just an idea.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2077	Posted - 2015.05.12 06:14:23 - [317] - Quote Fourteen Maken wrote: I'd like to see a super fast anti-kite MWD for burning down and tackling kiters with extreme speed and extreme cap usage (but no cap penalty) so it can only be used in bursts. Maybe a built in penalty on using capbooster to stop kiters abusing it. Another MWD for kiters which would be slower than the current meta and another with low fitting and cap usage for use by tight fits, and ships with cap issues: especially amarr, and snipers who just need it to keep range against ab fit brawlers. Make it an afterburner that has the option to inject cap charges for speed increase. Anti-kiting mod. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1157	Posted - 2015.05.12 12:51:50 - [318] - Quote AB T2 is at 135% atm .. i would like too see it closer too 160% increase the cap use too 25 ish.. and i would like a restrained version that specialises in low mass addition, so effectively a high agility version, serpentis and fed navy could be the faction version. compact should be more like 8pg 11 cpu enduring and 1mn 10pg 14 cpu 1MN AB 11pg 16cpu and scale that up for 10mn and 100mn'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
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 566	Posted - 2015.05.12 15:59:06 - [319] - Quote A 160% base is 200% skilled. Do not want. Not without outsourcing this to a new mid-tier of ABs with ensuing counter-balancing drawbacks - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=419044&find=unread // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 662	Posted - 2015.05.12 16:05:32 - [320] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: A 160% base is 200% skilled. Do not want. Not without outsourcing this to a new mid-tier of ABs with ensuing counter-balancing drawbacks - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=419044&find=unread And then just think about on sansha ships, with links and slaves...... Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp


CCP Larrikin C C P C C P Alliance 70	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:02:39 - [321] - Quote Hey Mates, I've made an update to the original post, go check it out! Here is a preview - CCP Larrikin wrote: Q: CCP can you please make Afterburners faster?! A: We have chosen not too for this balance pass. We are mostly happy with where afterburners are at in general. Buffing afterburners makes over-sized fits even more attractive than they currently are. 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%. A max faction speed fit overheating Garmur goes from 13085 m/s before the changes, to 13140 m/s after. Here is a list of the speed increases we expect to see across hull sizes and fits: [ship] ([fitting description]) Prepatch [speed] / [overloaded speed] > Postpatch [speed] / [overloaded speed] Regular Garmur (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 5015 / 7251 > Postpatch 5176 / 7281 Kestrel (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 3480 / 5017 > Postpatch 3770 / 5290 Svipul (Gistii A-Type 1/5MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 3572 / 5107 > Postpatch 3683 / 5129 Orthrus (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 3054 / 4421 > Postpatch 3152 / 4439 Augoror Navy Issue (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 1896 / 2719 > Postpatch 1938 / 2705 Ishtar (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 2084 / 3004 > Postpatch 2149 / 3016 Drake (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 1316 / 1882 > Postpatch 1356 / 1889 Tornado (Gistii A-Type 10/50MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 2077 / 2968 > Postpatch 2141 / 2980 Machariel (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 1994 / 2885 > Postpatch 2058 / 2897 Abaddon (Gistii A-Type 100/500MN MWD, Bonuses, Quafe Zero) Prepatch 896 / 1292 > Postpatch 922 / 1294 All of that said, we understand your concerns about the current nano-esk meta. We're going to look into that separately. Q: I donGÇÖt like the long names / flavor names / descriptor names!! A: Sorry. Other people do like them =) As always, feedback is welcome & encouraged.

Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1158	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:06:36 - [322] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: Hey Mates, Q: CCP can you please make Afterburners faster?! A: We have chosen not too for this balance pass. We are mostly happy with where afterburners are at in general. Buffing afterburners makes over-sized fits even more attractive than they currently are. then please consider size limitations on AB's i.e. small AB's 1mn's being small ship only ..etc.. 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 569	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:09:08 - [323] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: All of that said, we understand your concerns about the current nano-esk meta. We're going to look into that separately. Q: I donGÇÖt like the long names / flavor names / descriptor names!! A: Sorry. Other people do like them =) ( -í-¦ -£-û -í-¦) // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Alexis Nightwish 184	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:37:16 - [324] - Quote 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. CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 130	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:48:29 - [325] - Quote Just looking over the stats. Could we not have the t1 modules be so strictly worse?
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1744	Posted - 2015.05.12 18:58:57 - [326] - 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
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1074	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:36:24 - [327] - Quote Quote: 13085 when are you fixing this
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1158	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:40:24 - [328] - Quote also no reply too making an agility based meta for AB or mwd .. even at a faction level at least.. 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
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2848	Posted - 2015.05.12 19:48:52 - [329] - Quote 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? Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Sniper Smith Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 446	Posted - 2015.05.12 20:23:46 - [330] - Quote 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.


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. TrouserDeagle wrote: Quote: 13085 when are you fixing this 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.

Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1038	Posted - 2015.05.15 16:18:32 - [361] - Quote How many of ieland's finest hookers would it take to get the velocity-boost/sig-bloom defaults from 500% towards 400%?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 679	Posted - 2015.05.15 16:20:54 - [362] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: How many of ieland's finest hookers would it take to get the velocity-boost/sig-bloom defaults from 500% towards 400%? Probably all of them. Way too many people like the 500% numbers to change that quickly, though keeping the defaults matched is more likely than the people asking for only one or the other. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 134	Posted - 2015.05.15 17:15:16 - [363] - Quote 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
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.05.15 18:24:47 - [364] - 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
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1753	Posted - 2015.05.15 18:57:00 - [365] - 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
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 249	Posted - 2015.05.15 19:08:40 - [366] - 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?
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 135	Posted - 2015.05.15 19:24:45 - [367] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: 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. ((NUMBERS))] 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 You should care. We should care. This is our game just as much as theirs and we all should strive for good game design and meaningful choices about the tools we have to play with in our sandbox. T1 is build-able and accessible to anyone of any skill-level and should be able to compete in pvp and other ingame activities. We can't build meta mods and T2 requires both highskills and rare materials that need to be sourced. Haveing T1 mods that can work and be build anywhere would be a massive boon to area's far from the markets of Jita and the well nailed out logistics chains that feed from them. It would let groups be able to fight without a nail in the foot from thier own home untill stockpiles of better gear can be sourced. Because as of right now, we both wouldn't undock in a t1 fit ship. Its so bad that is entirely pointless.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2090	Posted - 2015.05.15 20:35:42 - [368] - Quote Remember that T1 is used in the production of T2 so there is a hefty demand for the meta 0 modules regardless of whether they are used on ships. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 137	Posted - 2015.05.15 20:53:05 - [369] - Quote Zappity wrote: Remember that T1 is used in the production of T2 so there is a hefty demand for the meta 0 modules regardless of whether they are used on ships. Its not about demand. Its about them being useable for something other than a building block, like them being a module. The only one that can be built by and used by new players, that doesn't require rare minerals to build.
Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 857	Posted - 2015.05.16 00:01:44 - [370] - Quote Onslaughtor wrote: Zappity wrote: Remember that T1 is used in the production of T2 so there is a hefty demand for the meta 0 modules regardless of whether they are used on ships. Its not about demand. Its about them being useable for something other than a building block, like them being a module. The only one that can be built by and used by new players, that doesn't require rare minerals to build. In CCP's defense they have stated many times that they do intend to make all meta items produceable. I imagine by dropped BPCs replacing current rat loot. Perhaps when they do this they will make the production of those meta modules consume the meta 0 module.

Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 195	Posted - 2015.05.16 08:22:02 - [371] - Quote Well at least the Gist escaped the undeserved nerfbatting. Looks better now, at least before I didn't even need to look closer to find issues, now I have to. Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy. If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 686	Posted - 2015.05.16 14:23:57 - [372] - Quote Basil Pupkin wrote: Well at least the Gist escaped the undeserved nerfbatting. Looks better now, at least before I didn't even need to look closer to find issues, now I have to. Wouldn't say totally escaped. The large added activation cost does hurt several existing builds which when gist over core for the cap use differences. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 61	Posted - 2015.05.16 17:08:48 - [373] - Quote xxxMN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Looking over the stats, this meta version seems a little too powerful in comparison to the tech II version. I would leave the sig bloom increase 500 % as 450 % is DED module territory and looks out of place on a meta 1 module. With the stats you linked that version has lower fitting reqs, lower sig bloom, and lower activation cost, while the only drawback being a very small reduction in velocity. In many ways it is far better than the T2 version.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 964	Posted - 2015.05.16 18:46:32 - [374] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Basil Pupkin wrote: Well at least the Gist escaped the undeserved nerfbatting. Looks better now, at least before I didn't even need to look closer to find issues, now I have to. Wouldn't say totally escaped. The large added activation cost does hurt several existing builds which when gist over core for the cap use differences. Yes, it killed pretty much all of my fits. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 617	Posted - 2015.05.16 20:35:20 - [375] - 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? "Just because" Probably wants to see Battleships rekt even more. Moac Tor wrote: xxxMN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive Looking over the stats, this meta version seems a little too powerful in comparison to the tech II version. I would leave the sig bloom increase 500 % as 450 % is DED module territory and looks out of place on a meta 1 module. With the stats you linked that version has lower fitting reqs, lower sig bloom, and lower activation cost, while the only drawback being a very small reduction in velocity. In many ways it is far better than the T2 version. What this gentleman said is korrekt. Seems redundant to introduce a third tier of sub-T2 meta MWDs, and the one proposed is too strong. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1417	Posted - 2015.05.16 21:09:48 - [376] - Quote What about the arcjet? It was coldgas arcjet thrusters. (Probably needs some spaces or hyphens I left out.) Seriously, just drop the new names and use letter/number codes for that part. They sound so lame compared to the old ones, and half of them don't make enough sense to be remembered easily, anyway, so they're not gaining us much. Do not run. We are your friends.
Conventia Underking Noir. No Not Believing 152	Posted - 2015.05.18 02:44:12 - [377] - Quote One more vote against the flavor names. I'd much prefer mods without them. (Feel free to put flavor text in the description, though.) For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity! The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking
Basil Pupkin Why So Platypus 196	Posted - 2015.05.18 03:14:09 - [378] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Wouldn't say totally escaped. The large added activation cost does hurt several existing builds which when gist over core for the cap use differences. Surely it's still a nerf, but at least Gist isn't worse at everything over Core now. In previous version Core was stupidly better at everything, now they are somewhat equal, which I can take, provided CCP at least says they had reasons for this. FT Diomedes wrote: Yes, it killed pretty much all of my fits. Goonies complaining about a goonie buff. Sooooo usual. Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy. If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Sturm Gewehr TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 71	Posted - 2015.05.18 03:32:39 - [379] - Quote Please keep the speed creep under control, especially frigates/cruisers.
craidie Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 17	Posted - 2015.05.20 01:54:31 - [380] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: 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 (%) Yet ALL faction/deadspace/officer afterburners have the same activion cost. Why is this?

Predator BOA Bastards Of Anarchy System Inc. Drop the Hammer 0	Posted - 2015.05.20 02:08:19 - [381] - Quote Gday all. I like the idea with the new changes here but i can't get my head around one of them here. 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%] Are all well and good but the Activation cost is more than an 500MD. Yes i know some have and Cap Penalty to some of them that are fine and i repect that. But the: Core X-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive [Meta Level 16 (+3); Powergrid 1250; CPU 98 (-2); Activation 280 (-44); Cap Penalty 0; Signature Bonus 390 (-32)%; Velocity Bonus 520 (+20)%; Overload Bonus 50%] Has less Activation of 280 and Zero Cap Penalty than the same one in the Afterburner Core X-Type 100MN Afterburner [Meta Level 16 (+3); Powergrid 625; CPU 65 (-1); Activation 290 (+49); Velocity Bonus 165 (+6)%; Overload Bonus 50%] We are not getting any trade-offs apart from fitting The Afterburner has: Lower activation cost then the MWD in the same class No capacitor penalty No signature penalty Easier fitting requirements Don't turn off when Warp Scrambled And yes, slower Why is the Core X-Type 500MN Microwarpdrive has better Activation of 280 then Core X-Type 100MN Afterburner of 290? Doesn't look right to me.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2093	Posted - 2015.05.20 10:34:39 - [382] - Quote Plate and shield extender changes on Sisi Reddit thread source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/36i8qb/plate_and_extender_changes_on_sisi/ Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 67	Posted - 2015.05.20 13:51:58 - [383] - Quote Zappity wrote: Plate and shield extender changes on Sisi Reddit thread source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/36i8qb/plate_and_extender_changes_on_sisi/ Very interesting, would like to see the official post in here regarding those shield and armour changes.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 658	Posted - 2015.05.20 15:01:22 - [384] - Quote Quote: 'Barbican' 800mm Reinforced Steel Plates I => 'Barbican' 800mm Steel Plates Attributes: armorHPBonusAdd: 2103 => 2400 cpu: 20 => 23 massAddition: 1500000 => 1250000 power: 180 => 195 Welp, there goes one super-seksi setup PG-wise. What is the point of these Storyline plates again? It costs 250 mil to build them. Head up to anyone sitting on LP: Imperial Navy/Federation Navy 800mm/1600mm plates just went up several times in price - you'll get over 3000 ISK / LP if you cash in now. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 945	Posted - 2015.05.21 05:52:09 - [385] - Quote I tend to agree that meta being all around better than T1 is a bad thing. They should be better than T1 in some way, but I think the problem is you have to take a look at the main purpose of the module and the stat that most directly affects that. In this case, there is little reason to choose a T1 MWD/AB since all the meta modules have a better speed boost with other varying bonuses. It would probably be much better to have the current types keep the same speed bonus as a T1, and add a fourth type of MWD/AB that has the speed boost, but otherwise the same stats as the T1. It's likely most ships will still use the meta variations, but it does even the playing field a BIT toward T1 still being viable. This should hold true for all meta variations after metacide: only have the module improved in the one specific aspect.
Agent Orange7 State Protectorate Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.05.21 05:59:13 - [386] - Quote Please change it so that the type name is before any flavor text, that way instead of "1MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner" it is "1MN Compact Y-S8 Afterburner" so that it is easier to search for specific types.
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 945	Posted - 2015.05.21 06:13:00 - [387] - Quote I'd actually say put it at the front, so we would have eg. Y-S8 Compact 1MN Afterburner, so we can search for "Compact 1MN Afterburner" or "1MN afterburner" How often do you search for all sizes of a certain type rather than all types of a certain size?
per Terpene Conglomerate 56	Posted - 2015.05.21 10:47:00 - [388] - Quote 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. and he will probably die taking 40% dmg less ;) if you fit mwd on that atron instead youll get some dmg reduction as well at max speed (not including "broken links" or overheat that will be totally different story) and you will be able to catch that kestrel or run away unlike with ab ;) but yeah ab's are still usefull in some situations
Arla Sarain 452	Posted - 2015.05.21 11:51:49 - [389] - Quote 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.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 673	Posted - 2015.05.21 12:33:45 - [390] - Quote 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. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]

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.

Za'kerak 9	Posted - 2015.06.02 15:42:00 - [421] - Quote Quote: Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "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" the names are f-ing terrible
Kyra Kitsune Virus Empire 0	Posted - 2015.06.03 03:01:17 - [422] - Quote Thank you for bringing back flavor names! Y-T8 I'm so happy to see you again! Now I don't have to keep fitting X5 webs instead of T2 out of stubbornness to the old names. The 5,50,500 is nice too so I don't have to sift through afterburners when I'm looking for a MWD. Good work CCP.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 85	Posted - 2015.06.04 11:51:11 - [423] - Quote I just wanted to repeat something which I posted earlier in this thread as after playing around in EFT my initial prediction is even worse than I predicted. As of now the 'restrained' meta 1 version of the microwarpdrive is FAR better than the tech II version. The difference in speed is tiny, but that drop in activation time and signature radius are in fact a massive benefit, and that is not to mention the reduced fitting requirements.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 85	Posted - 2015.06.04 11:54:50 - [424] - Quote Apo Lamperouge wrote: 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. The garmur has been broken since it first disgraced these forums in features and ideas. I really don't know what CCP Rise was thinking when he released it other than an attempt to troll us all.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 687	Posted - 2015.06.04 16:15:40 - [425] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Apo Lamperouge wrote: 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. The garmur has been broken since it first disgraced these forums in features and ideas. I really don't know what CCP Rise was thinking when he released it other than an attempt to troll us all. Yes. Mordu Legion Ships. Totally ridiculous concept from start to finish. Very fast Weapon system that doesn't require tracking or capacitor Weapon system with excellent projection Bonuses to weapon system to increase projection and give good DPS Then to cap it all off, they give it a bonus to point range! WTF?! If they left everything else in the ship and replaced the point range bonus with a large bonus to Target Painter Effectiveness (and range) it would be tolerable.
Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 164	Posted - 2015.06.04 16:49:26 - [426] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: Yes. Mordu Legion Ships. Totally ridiculous concept from start to finish. Very fast Weapon system that doesn't require tracking or capacitor Weapon system with excellent projection Bonuses to weapon system to increase projection and give good DPS Then to cap it all off, they give it a bonus to point range! WTF?! If they left everything else in the ship and replaced the point range bonus with a large bonus to Target Painter Effectiveness (and range) it would be tolerable. Hmm. Change point range to target painter...change racial from gallente to Minnmitar, and make a lot of people happy that the Cal/Minn faction finally exists. Seems like an all-round win. Technically I don't want to say I endorse this idea, but I do find it interesting. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 83	Posted - 2015.06.04 19:28:59 - [427] - Quote I like this redo of the modules, and filling in the extra meta for the medium and large modules. The little extra speed perk is ok too
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 86	Posted - 2015.06.04 20:54:28 - [428] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Hmm. Change point range to target painter...change racial from gallente to Minnmitar, and make a lot of people happy that the Cal/Minn faction finally exists. Seems like an all-round win. Technically I don't want to say I endorse this idea, but I do find it interesting. Exactly. This was the logical move and was suggested by people (myself included) a number of times in the relevant F&I thread when Mordus was first announced. Giving them a target painter bonus would have synergised greatly with the missiles allowing them to apply very good damage to their targets giving them a very nice role in the game. Instead Rise went with another gallente bonus and gave them point range which made them the most annoying and overpowered ships in the game for the reasons Spugg just mentioned.
Lidia Caderu Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 42	Posted - 2015.06.05 19:16:50 - [429] - Quote Too much of MWDs models. Boost a bit basic variant and shrink one module. 4 total variants per module type is totally enough.
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 25	Posted - 2015.06.07 04:23:20 - [430] - Quote Did the Devs secretly change the Prowlers powergrid? My ship that had previously had been fitted and working fine no longer has enough powergrid for the meta 3 10MN MWD(aka 50MN). What gives? Now I have to completely gimp my fit because of some stupid "minor" change.

Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2874	Posted - 2015.06.07 04:57:34 - [431] - Quote Styphon the Black wrote: Did the Devs secretly change the Prowlers powergrid? My ship that had previously had been fitted and working fine no longer has enough powergrid for the meta 3 10MN MWD(aka 50MN). What gives? Now I have to completely gimp my fit because of some stupid "minor" change. 50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive Tech I 1 (-2) 150 50 160 -25 500 505 50 Old Module "Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I" If it fit before it should fit now nothing from this has changed in terms of powergrid. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 560	Posted - 2015.06.07 08:17:04 - [432] - Quote Za'kerak wrote: Quote: Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "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" the names are f-ing terrible You find 'limited' and 'upgraded' to be easier to understand than 'compact' and 'enduring'? At least they now do what they say on the tin instead of requiring EVERYTHING to be cross-examined under the compare tool, just to know whether you're plugging in the 'easier to fit' variant of the module. Honest to god this is not even a practical complaint. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 25	Posted - 2015.06.08 20:56:56 - [433] - Quote Why is everything now meta 1?
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 1874	Posted - 2015.06.08 21:13:00 - [434] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: Za'kerak wrote: Quote: Q: What happens to my meta (Limited/Experimental) modules A: This - "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" the names are f-ing terrible You find 'limited' and 'upgraded' to be easier to understand than 'compact' and 'enduring'? At least they now do what they say on the tin instead of requiring EVERYTHING to be cross-examined under the compare tool, just to know whether you're plugging in the 'easier to fit' variant of the module. Honest to god this is not even a practical complaint. Those words are all right, it's the fluff around it that is terrible and useless.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 700	Posted - 2015.06.09 14:50:11 - [435] - Quote is it just me or are "Restrained" MWD's more "Enduring" than "Enduring".
Aeon Veritas Lobach Inc. Easily Offended 3	Posted - 2015.06.10 06:02:40 - [436] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: is it just me or are "Restrained" MWD's more "Enduring" than "Enduring". Further investigation shows that they have extremely similar end results on 50 and 500MN sizes. However, when used on frigates (5 MN sizes) "restrained" MWD's get far better endurance than "Enduring" MWD's. Nope, not just you... I think if you have the fitting space you should always fit "Restrained" and if not, well then you Need "Compact" either way. Which leaves the "Enduring" ihmo quite worthless (a shame that the existing meta have been converted to "Enduring"). Maybe the cap penalty of "Restrained" and "Enduring" should be set to 22,5%. That way the "Restrained" still have the advantage of a lesser sig bloom and the "Enduring" is up to its name. And the T2 will also Profit from this since it keeps the 20% cap penalty... General module tiericide thoughts
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 758	Posted - 2015.06.10 21:57:06 - [437] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: As of now the 'restrained' meta 1 version of the microwarpdrive is FAR better than the tech II version. The difference in speed is tiny, but that drop in activation time and signature radius are in fact a massive benefit, and that is not to mention the reduced fitting requirements. Lots of this. The Restrained takes ~10% lower PG cost, 9% lower capacitor cost and 10% lower signature radius bloom at the cost of 1% lower speed boost. To give an idea of the lack of significance of that speed difference, my MWD Vexor will hit 1677 with the Restrained and 1691 with the T2. A mere 14 m/s. Hardly worth the trade off. There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1180	Posted - 2015.06.10 23:04:08 - [438] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: Moac Tor wrote: As of now the 'restrained' meta 1 version of the microwarpdrive is FAR better than the tech II version. The difference in speed is tiny, but that drop in activation time and signature radius are in fact a massive benefit, and that is not to mention the reduced fitting requirements. Lots of this. The Restrained takes ~10% lower PG cost, 9% lower capacitor cost and 10% lower signature radius bloom at the cost of 1% lower speed boost. To give an idea of the lack of significance of that speed difference, my MWD Vexor will hit 1677 with the Restrained and 1691 with the T2. A mere 14 m/s. Hardly worth the trade off. indeed 5% buff to 505% is just a silly token thing, nerfing the meta's to something like 485% would make more sense 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
Specia1 K State War Academy Caldari State 84	Posted - 2015.06.10 23:35:31 - [439] - Quote Tech2 should have a reduction in heat damage over metas.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: [one 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.