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
|
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 00:07:09 -
[31] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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.
Most of this is admittedly a bit over my head, but I am staggered to see this kind intricate comment. I can't think of a retort to this yet.
|
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension Novus Dominatum
311
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 00:15:39 -
[32] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: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 over-sized 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 over-sized AB. The issue you run into is a meta issue. If you look at the days of ARMOR HACS ARMOR HACS ARMOR HACS, you see more use for the AB. The issue isn't with that, it is that it is not in vogue in much of the meta. That doesn't make it bad. There are plenty of reasons to use it, dismissing that is minimizing play-styles outside of your own.
Listen to Hydrostatic Podcast for all your Empyrean needs!
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
91
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 00:20:49 -
[33] - Quote
Ashterothi wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: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 over-sized 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 over-sized AB. The issue you run into is a meta issue. If you look at the days of ARMOR HACS ARMOR HACS ARMOR HACS, you see more use for the AB. The issue isn't with that, it is that it is not in vogue in much of the meta. That doesn't make it bad. There are plenty of reasons to use it, dismissing that is minimizing play-styles outside of your own.
I make heavy use of afterburners myself, but only as a modest secondary prop. Aren't the HACs mentioned in that event set up to project in a niche way that made the afterburners viable, by my understanding of EVE history afterburners have never been mainstream and used only for very meta specific things. MWDs have been universally more versatile and practical as far as a general basis goes. |
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension Novus Dominatum
311
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 00:41:53 -
[34] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Ashterothi wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: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 over-sized 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 over-sized AB. The issue you run into is a meta issue. If you look at the days of ARMOR HACS ARMOR HACS ARMOR HACS, you see more use for the AB. The issue isn't with that, it is that it is not in vogue in much of the meta. That doesn't make it bad. There are plenty of reasons to use it, dismissing that is minimizing play-styles outside of your own. I make heavy use of afterburners myself, but only as a modest secondary prop. Aren't the HACs mentioned in that event set up to project in a niche way that made the afterburners viable, by my understanding of EVE history afterburners have never been mainstream and used only for very meta specific things. MWDs have been universally more versatile and practical as far as a general basis goes.
The big advantage to Armor is small sig radius, and the AB helps maintain that. the Armor HACs had decent projection so could stick together and move with a very difficult to hit profile (for what they were)
This exists other places, such as your "modest" use of it. I bet it is impacting your fight more then you know. All that being said, one could argue that the Amarr are very much designed for AB use, but the race as a whole has fallen behind. Perhaps a buff to ABs could help them remain competitive or give more options to solo/small gang armor tankers vs. ASBs.
Listen to Hydrostatic Podcast for all your Empyrean needs!
|
Nyalnara
AdAstra. Beach Club
159
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 08:52:06 -
[35] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: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.
I see a fundamental problem in you suggestion, and that is the script use. Because you need to deactivate the mod before changing script, and afterward you still need to wait for a few server ticks while the mod is still reded. Then you can change it and activate it. It's not that much of a problem with scripted ewar or tracking computers and MGCs, but it would pretty much kill you to loss speed for that much time, especially in small-gang solo engagement...
In case of ponies, keep calm and start running.
French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2661
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 14:26:12 -
[36] - Quote
I can't remember the last time I saw afterburners being called for in a fleet fit, even in an armor HAC fit. Oh wait, yes, I can...it was never! (Logistics do, but they have overpowered tiny sig radius. The T1 logi only does it to stay with the T2 logi.) I use afterburners all the time, but mostly just to save powergrid. They only work for speed tanking on frigates and T2 logistics cruisers, but T2 logi are as OP as strategic cruisers, and frigates still die easy whether or not they have an afterburner.
In solo engagements, afterburners are more popular, but in any fleet fight involving ten or more pilots per side, microwarpdrives are pretty much mandatory.
My suggestion gives afterburners a way to increase speed that comes at a cost, which doesn't buff their unscripted use but still gives more options for a pilot who has fit one. Often the main reason people don't want to fit an afterburner is because they don't want to be slowboating it and wasting precious seconds in travel. Allowing them a scrip which can make the afterburner faster at cost is an effective compromise, and makes the afterburner less of a liability, allowing the user to enjoy its benefits with less of a headache.
If necessary, the afterburner speed boost script could come with an additional drawback, perhaps increasing the sig radius slightly or decreasing agility further.
Nyalnara wrote:I see a fundamental problem in you suggestion, and that is the script use. Because you need to deactivate the mod before changing script, and afterward you still need to wait for a few server ticks while the mod is still reded. Then you can change it and activate it. It's not that much of a problem with scripted ewar or tracking computers and MGCs, but it would pretty much kill you to loss speed for that much time, especially in small-gang solo engagement... We're talking about a tech 1 module here, not a tech 3 module. The pilot has the power to decide whether or not it's a good time to change scripts. Sometimes it's never a good time, that's why it is then up to the pilot to decide if the benefits of changing it outweigh the drawbacks.
Speaking of tech 3 modules, perhaps built-in scripts and not having to off-line the module or worry about cycle times would be a way to make them happen. They could also offer a variety of bonuses. Here is an example:
Tech 3 Sensor Computer Extension When it goes online, it drains 25 capacitor once every 10 seconds, it doesn't cycle but simply drains the capacitor if it is still running at the end of the 10 seconds. Onlining or offlining it causes a 10 second cooldown preventing it from being onlined or offlined. It does not cost capacitor to online, and does not require the ship's capacitor to be at any specific level. It has 3 modes: Targeting, Tracking, and Passive. Targeting mode provides a boost to targeting speed and targeting range, and increases the max number of targets locked. Tracking mode increases turret optimal, falloff, and tracking, and increases missile flight time, velocity, and explosion velocity, and decreases missile explosion radius. Passive mode boosts sensor strength and reduces the effectiveness of tracking disruptors and sensor dampeners used against the ship.
Food for thought. I'm not proposing this module, just giving ideas. Maybe one of you can write up a decent proposal for tech 3 modules.
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
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
796
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 14:54:47 -
[37] - Quote
There is absolutely nothing wrong with oversized propmods, bring your rapier. I believe a machariel can counter most of them as well.
Oversized propmods were OP but confessors and tengus got nerfed, now they are just hard to pin down but in no way OP as they come with severe fitting costs.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1482
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 15:10:58 -
[38] - 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.
What would you do? Stack them on the assend of the ship? Weld one onto the exhaust ports and duct tape the other one onto the windshield? |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2662
|
Posted - 2015.10.15 17:03:44 -
[39] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Oversized propmods were OP but confessors and tengus got nerfed, now they are just hard to pin down but in no way OP as they come with severe fitting costs. The real reason they ever were OP was the ships that were using them. When you give a ship enough powergrid to fit a full rack of guns, then take away some gun slots and give it a damage bonus instead, it winds up with extra powergrid to abuse. This was the big problem with both types of T3, and shows a fundamental flaw in CCP's attributes balance that I'm a little surprised we haven't taught them how to fix yet.
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
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
96
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 06:10:25 -
[40] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: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. What would you do? Stack them on the assend of the ship? Weld one onto the exhaust ports and duct tape the other one onto the windshield?
I don't believe that those propulsion systems exist as an addendum on the exterior of the ship, but instead are more of a modification make to an interior engine like a supercharger on a car as opposed to an engine attached to it. |
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
1080
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 08:42:03 -
[41] - Quote
Nyalnara wrote:I see a fundamental problem in you suggestion, and that is the script use. Because you need to deactivate the mod before changing script, and afterward you still need to wait for a few server ticks while the mod is still reded. Then you can change it and activate it. It's not that much of a problem with scripted ewar or tracking computers and MGCs, but it would pretty much kill you to loss speed for that much time, especially in small-gang solo engagement... I think it's about time to make it so we can buffer script swap to ensure next cycle will use new one and forget about the module until the next swap or other mod manipulation we need to make.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2787
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 09:26:02 -
[42] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: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. yeah, mean to compare the two prop mods to each other |
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 10:27:30 -
[43] - 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.
Agreed, oversized ABs are gimmicky and are heavily reliant on links, and to a lesser extent implants. Balancing ship setups around links isn't good game design. There are plenty of situations where ABs are good, but they're still weak in most space compared to the MWD, especially in the current kiting metagame. For cruisers, there's little reason to ever fit one outside of an AHAC doctrine fleet or the occasional dual prop (barring the phantasm of course.) |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
99
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 10:34:56 -
[44] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: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. yeah, mean to compare the two prop mods to each other Further exposition please. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
99
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 10:49:32 -
[45] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:There is absolutely nothing wrong with oversized propmods, bring your rapier. I believe a machariel can counter most of them as well.
Oversized propmods were OP but confessors and tengus got nerfed, now they are just hard to pin down but in no way OP as they come with severe fitting costs.
Generally you are right about oversized propulsion, there isn't much that is actually wrong with them., but they are very consistently powerful and comparable to MWDs. If every pilot could equip an OverMN AB without being penalized for its fitting costs they would certainly do so over fitting a FitMN AB every time. They might not; however, equip an overMN AB instead of a fitMN MWD. I think that all 3 choices should be equally appealing and that fitABs should have the ability to serve more of a resounding fleet/solo role other than sitting on zero of a button, station, or gate. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
99
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 10:57:07 -
[46] - Quote
Personally, in addition to universal tracking/application buffs, I think it would be more functionally entertaining if ABs had a velocity bonus buff that put them much closer to the current state of MWDs, and that MWDs themselves should be reworked to function more similarly to MJDs. In this case the MWD would provide the player with a much larger velocity increase than it does already, but only for a cycle or two. It would then need to shut down for a mandatory cooldown before it could be activated again, and thermodynamics would only apply to cooldown limits of the module. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2667
|
Posted - 2015.10.16 20:03:06 -
[47] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:Generally you are right about oversized propulsion, there isn't much that is actually wrong with them., but they are very consistently powerful and comparable to MWDs. If every pilot could equip an OverMN AB without being penalized for its fitting costs they would certainly do so over fitting a FitMN AB every time. They might not; however, equip an overMN AB instead of a fitMN MWD. I think that all 3 choices should be equally appealing and that fitABs should have the ability to serve more of a resounding fleet/solo role other than sitting on zero of a button, station, or gate. Part of the problem is that a handful of ships can make an oversized prop mod work, while the vast majority don't have that as an option. If there were more prop mod sizes, there could be more room to play around with oversized prop mods. Make a 2.5MN, 25MN, and 250MN afterburner, and not only will every ship be able to fit one, but the ships using a full size up will probably be considering taking it down to the half size up and spending the extra powergrid on something more important. That will put ships more on the same page with each other and make powergrid seem to scale more evenly.
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
|
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
100
|
Posted - 2015.10.17 21:04:31 -
[48] - Quote
The general obligatory nature of the prop mod does lead to some odd fitting. You think there would just be a "propulsion slot" in the fitting window. It would certainly free up some of the odd balancing issues around mid slots. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2673
|
Posted - 2015.10.18 03:16:31 -
[49] - Quote
Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:The general obligatory nature of the prop mod does lead to some odd fitting. You think there would just be a "propulsion slot" in the fitting window. It would certainly free up some of the odd balancing issues around mid slots. I'd ultimately like to see a way to get by without prop mods in more than niche cases (Windrunner Tornadoes, for instance), but I have thought it could work to make a "low slot prop mod" which is weaker than a mid slot prop mod but easier to fit and use. I had come up with this: Small, medium, large, x-large, and micro overdrive injector Micro is just your regular overdrive injector. Small, medium, large, and x-large cost extra powergrid (still zero CPU) and offer the overdrive injector speed boost at all times, plus a passive propulsion effect as long as no other propulsion modules are active. The passive propulsion effect grants 3x the overdrive injector's base bonus and doesn't increase the ship's mass but does use a standard thrust/mass calculation to determine how effective the propulsion effect is. The powergrid cost would be low enough for any ship to fit an oversized overdrive injector pretty easily. The X-large is either for capital ships to use (not very useful), or more importantly so that battleships have an oversized option.
If we embrace oversized modules, we can stop shying away from them. Then we can balance everything with the assumption that oversized modules are a real thing. Make them easy to use, then you have a level playing field.
Small: 2MW Medium: 20MW Large: 200MW X-Large: 2000MW
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] |