Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 06:30:15 -
[1] - Quote
Currently, afterburners give the same mass penalty as microwarpdrives. Should this be changed so that they give a smaller mass penalty? I haven't done the math on this so I am not totally sure, but I was thinking this would help make the slightly more viable over the MWD in some more fields. |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 06:47:59 -
[2] - Quote
MWD can be shut down, give a large sig radius (+350-500%), use more cap and have cap penalty (X type and 2 officer MWD have no cap penalty, limited to 500MN) |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 06:58:53 -
[3] - Quote
Yes I am aware of this, it just seems odd to me that they have the same mass penalty. Although those penalties you mentioned are relevant to the application of the prop mods they have little to do with the agility and velocity factors that are being effected here. It just seems to me that the 5MN MWD should add 500k kg of mass, and that the 1MN AB adds that same amount of mass, instead of providing 100k kg instead. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2580
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 07:00:34 -
[4] - Quote
It's fairly deliberate that Afterburners make for poor agility I believe. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 07:03:49 -
[5] - Quote
But for just as low agility as microwarpdrives? |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 07:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Having 6x the signature radius (+500%) and having 20% less max capasitor is a high cost. If you enemy shut down your MWD you still have -20% capacitor making you that much easier/faster to neut dry
For speed/sig tanking AB is better, for pure speed MWD is better
Using T2 module numbers, diffrent meta levels have diffrent sig/cap penalty |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 07:24:29 -
[7] - Quote
You are not answering the question I proposed. Did I word something oddly? I am aware of the penalties and costs, I am aware of what the general purposes of the two prop mods are. I am asking what would be the balancing issues if the mass penalty for ABs were decreased in order to make them better at the "speed tanking" aspect of their role. |
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 07:39:48 -
[8] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:You are not answering the question I proposed. Did I word something oddly? I am aware of the penalties and costs, I am aware of what the general purposes of the two prop mods are. I am asking what would be the balancing issues if the mass penalty for ABs were decreased in order to make them better at the "speed tanking" aspect of their role.
They are already the best module for "speed tanking" by a large margin (not counting ship bonuses) So the balancing issue with boosting the best module is that speed tanking would become even better, small/fast ships are already very strong |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 07:44:37 -
[9] - Quote
I can understand that. |
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
156
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 11:51:45 -
[10] - Quote
Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1807
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 12:43:44 -
[11] - Quote
Nyalnara wrote:Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta...
The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
105
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 13:21:10 -
[12] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Nyalnara wrote:Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta... The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive.
How do you suggest we do that. Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2334
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 13:52:36 -
[13] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Nyalnara wrote:Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta... The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive. How do you suggest we do that. Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?
Or you could just put a "role" tag on them like the 2 different MJD... |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1214
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 15:52:44 -
[14] - Quote
i have suggested this before reducing mass on AB's so its lower than mwd's but until they ban oversized AB's this would be bad, but i think people are turning towards the idea of banning oversized props, on the recent AB pass i suggested making more roles in particular an agility based one which would fit in with the lower mass and AB's do need a speed buff one way or another especially if webs won't get any nerfs.
T3's need to be versatile not have T2 resists, OP dps and tank obsoleting T2 ships entirely.
ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 highslots for droneboats
Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1808
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 16:12:51 -
[15] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Nyalnara wrote:Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta... The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive. How do you suggest we do that. Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB?
Just make it so it can only fit on the appropriate class.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
794
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 17:14:31 -
[16] - Quote
Good thing you people aren't the decision makers of this game.
Afterburners and mwds are perfectly fine and working as intended.
Get over it.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1474
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 17:37:29 -
[17] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Good thing you people aren't the decision makers of this game.
Afterburners and mwds are perfectly fine and working as intended.
Get over it.
Easy there. If you read this carefully it is probably one of the more civil and productive threads in this section. Go get some panties that fit properly and rejoin the discussion on an even keel.
I think the OP has been subdued by logical explanation. All is well here.
As a side note - I think we can all get our brains around an afterburner, what it is and what it does. I think we can all agree that a MWD is (at the time of writing this response) pretty much made up space sciencemagic. I think the OP is imagining the blue swirly flash MWD and is using that to deduce AB should add less mass (blue swirly flash MWD being big and bulky). Most of the reponders seem to be imagining the red/orange spertzenberger style MWD. These models are both small and sexy and comparable to the AB in size.
Since CCP has never clearly stated one way or the other on the blue swirly flash vs. red/orange spertzenberger drives I don't think it's really appropirate for us to debate the mass issue. It would be nice to add visual modules (akin to swapping t3 subs) to ships so we could actually see the AB or MWD attached to the ship.
Adding this graphical functionality would: - improve immersion - settle this mass debate - prevent the fitting of oversized drives on ships - elliminate the silly practice of dual prop fitting certain ships
|
Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 18:16:40 -
[18] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Nyalnara wrote:Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta... The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive. How do you suggest we do that. Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB? Just make it so it can only fit on the appropriate class.
Then i would assume you want all tank mods limited to only the appropriate class? Frigate - 100mm armor plate, Destroyer 200mm armor plate and so on (fits perfect with 1600mm plate limited to BS) |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 18:52:02 -
[19] - Quote
I disagree that afterburners and MWDs are working "fine" as intended. The way it works now, AB is a niche equipment piece optimized for low sec complexes (where combat ranges can intentionally be kept short) Generally speaking they are tactically sub-par to MWDs all around.
Webs in conjunction with neuts in many cases can make an afterburner just as useful as an MWD within scram ranges seeing as, under webs, ABs still suffer the mass penalty induced from being active; alternatively, if the AB was to be deactivated they would be horrendously slowed in comparison to their opponent. They may be working good enough, but I certainly wouldn't say that there isn't room for improvement.
Nothing, so far, has been subdued as far as the OP stands. I do agree that things could be kept unanimously civil, however I disagree that your point about "Blue Swirly Flash" sciencemagic (whatever that is even supposed to mean) and that OP is being made based on aesthetic issue.
The mass gain attributed to propulsion is made to simulate a concept called "momentum" which is not "sciencemagic" generally speaking, objects that move faster have more momentum, when an object has particularly high momentum, (either due to more velocity or more mass) more force is required to deter this object from whatever its current vectoring is.
With that being said does it really not make sense that an object that provides literally 5x the thrust (and therefore 5x the simulated momentum) of the second object would have 5 times the mass addition of the said second object?
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1810
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 18:52:30 -
[20] - Quote
Haatakan Reppola wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Haatakan Reppola wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Nyalnara wrote:Also, decreasing mass addition effect on oversized AB fits would do lots of damage on the current meta... The solution here is to get rid of the oversized AB cancer, then properly balance AB's and MWD's, not to leave the current situation where you must fit a Mandatory Warp Drive. How do you suggest we do that. Increase fitting cost or nerf the fitting for all ships that can fit an oversized AB? Just make it so it can only fit on the appropriate class. Then i would assume you want all tank mods limited to only the appropriate class? Frigate - 100mm armor plate, Destroyer 200mm armor plate and so on (fits perfect with 1600mm plate limited to BS)
Absolutely. I have suggested that elsewhere.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 18:55:18 -
[21] - Quote
Furthermore dualproping is not silly nor would your suggested change "fix" it. Dual proping occurs when a target still needs to acquire the tactical advantage of heightened maximum velocity while possessing the ability to to not be totally immobile once entering the "commitment range" it is a thing that is almost required in most small gangs that possess vulnerable brawly tackle. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 18:58:41 -
[22] - Quote
Then i would assume you want all tank mods limited to only the appropriate class? Frigate - 100mm armor plate, Destroyer 200mm armor plate and so on (fits perfect with 1600mm plate limited to BS)[/quote]
Absolutely. I have suggested that elsewhere.
Personally, I don't like plating frigate class vessels seeing the loss in speed and therefore solid hits negates the hp advantage anyway in many cases. It still has purpose and effectiveness, but is ,in a lot of cases, either overkill or too detrimental. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2785
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 19:13:40 -
[23] - Quote
I thought the mass addition was to keep the overall agility boost in check?
Iirc an empty ship with MWD or AB has the same align time. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1475
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 19:25:36 -
[24] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Furthermore dualproping is not silly nor would your suggested change "fix" it. Dual proping occurs when a target still needs to acquire the tactical advantage of heightened maximum velocity while possessing the ability to to not be totally immobile once entering the "commitment range" it is a thing that is almost required in most small gangs that possess vulnerable brawly tackle. Adding a visual change would not negate its necessity.
Are you single? I think I'm falling for you. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 19:54:37 -
[25] - Quote
Rowells wrote:I thought the mass addition was to keep the overall agility boost in check?
Iirc an empty ship with MWD or AB has the same align time.
My math has not been checked but I believe the align time is extended variably from different classes. It usually has become a rule of thumb as a pvp'er that you want to warp with your prop inactive in scenarios where you aren't under duress. |
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension Novus Dominatum
311
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 20:02:57 -
[26] - Quote
Anytime you want to buff a module, you have to prove that the change is needed, same with nerfs. You have called ABs a "niche" item, but in a lot of environments, they really are the go-to choice. If you try to rebalance it for the low end, you quickly risk blowing it out of the water for the applications it is already used for.
Case in point the Confessor: people already do everything they can to slap an overside AB on that guy, and if you buff ABs, you have to account for that buff in making these ships even bigger monsters. And you can't just say "nerf confessors" because then you don't understand the butterfly effect in design.
So, while one could very well argue that an AB may not need the same agility penalty as MWDs, the system as it stands is working, and a change like that could ruin a good thing. "If it ain't broke..."
Listen to Hydrostatic Podcast for all your Empyrean needs!
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
86
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 20:53:11 -
[27] - Quote
Ashterothi wrote:Anytime you want to buff a module, you have to prove that the change is needed, same with nerfs. You have called ABs a "niche" item, but in a lot of environments, they really are the go-to choice. If you try to rebalance it for the low end, you quickly risk blowing it out of the water for the applications it is already used for.
Case in point the Confessor: people already do everything they can to slap an overside AB on that guy, and if you buff ABs, you have to account for that buff in making these ships even bigger monsters. And you can't just say "nerf confessors" because then you don't understand the butterfly effect in design.
So, while one could very well argue that an AB may not need the same agility penalty as MWDs, the system as it stands is working, and a change like that could ruin a good thing. "If it ain't broke..."
I will continue to argue that EVE is broken, it is a thing whose entirety revolves around being broken, the true quote that you are trying to reference is, "If it is broken and enough people don't mind it that way then leave it alone or you might scare somebody."
By, "in a lot of environments" do you mean station dueling and low sec complexes? Because that really sums up their practical uses. You can use them anywhere else if you want but I can guarantee the effects will be hilarious.
Obviously something can be done to effect the ability to fit oversized ABs I think that they are a thing that people should still be able to fit, but the confessors particular power with it is at a fault its own design, not the oversized AB. |
Ares Desideratus
Minmatar Brotherhood Ushra'Khan
277
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 22:48:04 -
[28] - Quote
Dual prop is legit. Oversized AB is cool, but restricting ships to flying only same-size ABs is just limiting some creative and complex gameplay for no reason.
ABs are not nearly as useful as MWDs are, in general. Like you said, Az, they're niche. But, any kind of decrease in mass penalty will also have an effect on the world of oversized AB ships. The solution is not to ban oversized ABs. But perhaps there is a middle ground. We could decrease the mass penalty of ABs that are fitted to the correct size ship, but ships fitting oversized ABs would still suffer the same horrible agility and acceleration that they do now. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 23:20:30 -
[29] - Quote
Ares Desideratus wrote:Dual prop is legit. Oversized AB is cool, but restricting ships to flying only same-size ABs is just limiting some creative and complex gameplay for no reason.
ABs are not nearly as useful as MWDs are, in general. Like you said, Az, they're niche. But, any kind of decrease in mass penalty will also have an effect on the world of oversized AB ships. The solution is not to ban oversized ABs. But perhaps there is a middle ground. We could decrease the mass penalty of ABs that are fitted to the correct size ship, but ships fitting oversized ABs would still suffer the same horrible agility and acceleration that they do now.
I am all for middle ground agreements. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2661
|
Posted - 2015.10.14 23:50:20 -
[30] - Quote
It is difficult to simply decrease the mass bonus and get the math to work. The way the calculation works, the listed speed bonus is achieved when the total ship mass in kilograms is equal to the net thrust value in Newtons. If, for instance, you made the 10MN Afterburner increase mass by +2,500,000kg and offer 12,500,000N thrust, this would make it scale much more rapidly than the MWD the further the ship's mass was from 10,000,000kg.
For example, if the current 10MN AB II was applied to a ship of either 1,000,000kg or 100,000,000kg, the actual speed bonus would be: +337.5% speed (1,000,000kg) +19.3% speed (100,000,000kg)
But if the 10MN AB II used +2,500,000kg and 12,500,000N thrust, the actual speed bonus would instead be: +482.1% speed (1,000,000kg) +16.5% speed (100,000,000kg)
I don't know about you, but I think the scaling is steep enough as it is. I cannot figure out a way to resolve this mathematically, but if anyone else knows a way, please let me know.
I had an idea for a workaround that could make for a lot of beneficial changes to prop modules, giving players a lot more choices in how they prop, as well as more speed options: add scripts.
I'm thinking two scripts per module: Afterburner Script 1: Uses the basic mass calculation for purposes of determining speed increase, but then applies only 20% of the mass bonus toward reducing agility. This script reduces afterburner speed bonus in order to improve agility. Can assist in aligning ship to warp faster as well as allowing ship to be running afterburner yet still ready to warp at a moment's notice. Also good for very tight orbits such as with blasters or autocannons.
Afterburner Script 2: Increases speed bonus significantly but increases capacitor consumption a lot, making this module/script more expensive to run than a microwarpdrive (but it still has cheaper fitting and no sig radius bonus). This is the strongest option for speed tanking.
Microwarpdrive Script 1: Reduces signature radius penalty by 80% but greatly reduces speed bonus. Faster than Afterburner script 2 and is similar to unscripted afterburner use value for speed tanking but makes your actual travel speed a lot higher.
Microwarpdrive Script 2: Reduces capacitor consumption and max capacitor penalty by 50% but reduces speed significantly. This is the fastest script but unscripted MWD is the fastest of all.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |