Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13725
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 19:30:53 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone! We're planning a huge set of module tiericide in our March release and this thread will serve as the feedback location for changes to Cap Batteries.
These modules have long been the crappy cousins of all the excellent capacitor modules in EVE. Back in 2012 they were given a new function that randomly reflected Nos and Neut effects back at the attacker. Although it is helpful in niche situations, this bonus has significant problems with clarity for both players involved. So we are removing the reflect mechanic and replacing it with the new Capacitor Warfare Resistance attribute. This is actually a change that we began in December but there was a significant bug with it that we are fixing along with this Tiericide pass.
We are also buffing the capacitor benefit of these modules quite a bit, and adjusting their fitting significantly (generally increasing powergrid usage and reducing cpu).
You'll notice that the Nos/Neut resistance is the same between different sized modules of the same meta level. This is intentional, and we do expect that in some cases people may fit undersized Cap Batteries simply to maximize their resistance. However as long as the capacitor bonus is significant enough (and we believe it probably is, but SISI testing is of course required) you'll still want to fit the largest cap battery possible for your given fitting room.
We are also adding faction cap batteries for the Republic Fleet, Dominations and Thukker Tribe.
Here's the most recent iteration of the numbers:
We're very interested in your feedback on all these changes. We'll be releasing them to Singularity next week if all goes well, so that you can try these and all the other module changes planned for the March release. Please use this thread for passing along your feedback, and we'll be reading.
Thanks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13725
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 19:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
stg slate
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:10:36 -
[3] - Quote
Nifty! |
Berluth Luthian
Kill'em all. Let Bob sort'em out.
210
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:12:52 -
[4] - Quote
Thanks for all the love for the Republic Fleet store! It was desperately needed. If the warzone does fuse into one big four way conflict, without a steady demand for its LP the Minnie's will be permanently behind, especially considering their long term deflated value thanks to its historical farmability. |
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
55
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:13:27 -
[5] - Quote
Does the neut/nos resistance stack if multiple batteries are fitted? |
Creecher Virpio
Alcoholocaust. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:22:31 -
[6] - Quote
Are there any plans to release capital sized variants of these modules? These would be reallllyyyy nifty for triage carriers, especially in wormholes! |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
557
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:23:19 -
[7] - Quote
Is it safe to assume that there will be stacking penalty on the nos/neut resistance?
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13734
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:23:24 -
[8] - Quote
Creecher Virpio wrote:Are there any plans to release capital sized variants of these modules? These would be reallllyyyy nifty for triage carriers, especially in wormholes!
Yes we're currently planning on adding capital variants in the expansion if all goes well with this first release.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13734
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:23:56 -
[9] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:Is it safe to assume that there will be stacking penalty on the nos/neut resistance?
Yup it gets the same kind of stacking interaction as armor/shield hardeners.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
MRxX7XxMONKEY
Sleepless Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:46:58 -
[10] - Quote
Just make sure you make the LP costs of the faction versions accessible, that nerf to PG consumption is pretty crazy and will make a lot of fits unusable without the faction versions |
|
Arla Sarain
751
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 20:59:32 -
[11] - Quote
Not sure, the fitting requirements are so high for the smalls. The random reflect never bothered anyone IMO, neither did the small Cap Bonus. Using up 10-12 PG on a frigate is a big amount. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
4956
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:04:48 -
[12] - Quote
Officer versions?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
1985
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:15:51 -
[13] - Quote
Quote: they were given a new function that randomly reflected Nos and Neut effects back at the attacker. Although it is helpful in niche situations, this bonus has significant problems with clarity for both players involved.
No way, it isn't a flat reflect at every cycle?
Talk about clarity :D
Good changes!
Signature Tanking Best Tanking
Retired Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - Ex-BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3492
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:17:08 -
[14] - Quote
will we see the capwar resistance value somewhere in the ships attributes or fitting window?
edit: have you considered giving semiconductor rigs a similar function?
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
|
Lelob
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
209
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:17:55 -
[15] - Quote
Pgu requirements are too high compared to current. It is already tough to fit these things onto ships. |
Rosal Milag
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:24:29 -
[16] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Not sure, the fitting requirements are so high for the smalls. The random reflect never bothered anyone IMO, neither did the small Cap Bonus. Using up 10-12 PG on a frigate is a big amount.
Considering that a clever carrier could cap out an unsuspecting bhalgorn fairly easily under certain circumstances, I think this is a good buff for offensive uses of cap warfare.
100 Cap for a frigate is easily 25% more cap, which is huge. Easily needing another cycle of a medium neut or two to cap it out. A tackle ship may want to seriously consider this module now if he has spare fitting space. |
Anthar Thebess
1452
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:25:57 -
[17] - Quote
Pirate Faction LP store version ????
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1459
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:34:07 -
[18] - Quote
Lelob wrote:Pgu requirements are too high compared to current. It is already tough to fit these things onto ships.
I think that is to discourage putting a large cap battery on a cruiser, like say a Tengu. Or some other high-cap-need cruiser. We all know how T3Cs love their over-sized mods.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1065
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 21:34:59 -
[19] - Quote
Is the cap resistance value in % or do neuts get added a new value?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
432
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:06:49 -
[20] - Quote
I freaking love all the new Republic Fleet and now Thukker Tribe modules. About time, these changes look great! |
|
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
32
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:12:36 -
[21] - Quote
72 CPU for t2 Med battery is still a joke. 90 CPU for t2 heavy is even more of a joke.
What do think players intend to sacrifice to fit that abomination, if competiors has 25/40 CPU cost and has additiona capacior measured by size of your cargohold.
small cap battery bonus is 1/4 of Navy 400 charge. Any cap hungry ship eats several charges during the fight. I've used that module only once, was disapointed. med cap battery bonus is 1/2 of Navy 800 charge. Any cap hungry ship eats several charges during the fight. Flat out useless, as capwar is appled to t2 logistics (no room to fit that abomination, and t3 cruisers (who can fit large one) large cap battery bonus is 1250 is still garbage for cap-boosting purpuses of BC above, good for t3 cruisers, if you still able to fit that, some hiche t2 hulls (given they still be able to fit that) could use added regen+resists to actually tank some neuts.
tl;dr untill you'll be able to facetank 1.5-2 appropriate sized neuts with added cap regen+resist with said modules, they will be of no use in any actal small-med scale PVP situation, because boosters are flat out better in cap injection during the fight. Only usable pvp niche is being fitted ready for capwar-intensive fleet battle, when only resistances matter and combined capfeed power of the feet (and that happens only in WH space).
PVE-wise only t3 hulls/small selection of t2 crusers (when you are operate w/o easy acces to cap charges or have no spare cargo room) |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1202
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:25:46 -
[22] - Quote
60 cpu for a frigate module? these cpu values are nuts |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:41:27 -
[23] - Quote
No new faction module today for Amarrian side? only Minmatars and Gallente got new faction modules from this rebalance
sry for my English :-(
|
Mr Hyde113
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
278
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:48:14 -
[24] - Quote
Good stuff! I can see fitting one on my rattlesnake or golem instead of a second heavy cap booster as a new form of neut protection.
Mr Hyde - Candidate for CSM XI
Youtube Channel
Twitter
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:49:22 -
[25] - Quote
These still aren't going to be useful. The cap bonuses only work out to be about 15% of their respective size classes' capacitor. Even combined with their cap war resistance, they're still going to be extremely weak compared to cap injectors. In the niche instances you'd want to have a cap war resistance, a cap injector would probably still be a better choice. Moreover, the powergrid requirements for frigates are punishing, small, medium and large variants have far, far too high CPU costs. What were you guys thinking?
For t2 modules, the cap war bonus should be in the realm of 33% and the cap bonuses should double the capacitor size of the ship fitting it. To balance the much larger capacitor, they should come with a 25% capacitor recharge penalty. The fittings of the frigate sized modules should be reduced to near small cap booster levels, and the battleship sized variants should go to around a thousand powergrid to prevent niche HAC fits from abusing them. CPU costs need to make sense, they need to be near the same as cap boosters, there's no reason they need to be so insanely high.
If you're going to fit be to be resistant to cap warfare, make it matter guys. Most of the module tiericide has been pretty good, but you've really dropped the ball on this one. They need to have a much more extreme makeover to be made useful. Please reconsider on this one, you've got a good opportunity to make something kind of fun and useful here out of a module that hasn't been either for years. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
299
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:52:43 -
[26] - Quote
still no XL capacitor batteries? (appeared in the DB circa 2004, never came out.. )
(referring to 'XL', not 'Capital')
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
146
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:53:51 -
[27] - Quote
faction batteries to the one faction that has guns with no cap use?? its a little odd, but it if seen as a counter to cap-warfare i can understand it. |
Squawk Squawk
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 22:59:06 -
[28] - Quote
Are those Resistence numbers percentage or fixed numbers? I.e i do fit a t2 cap battery and if someone neuts me with a heavy neut draining 600 cap.. he will only drain 575.. or is it 25% and he only drains 450? If its a fixed number and no percentage then you might as well remove the module from the game. Anyhow it would be nice if you could include a proper description whether its % or not cause it is a huge difference.
Also for the love of god.. post sheets that show everything without scrolling left and right. |
Avon Salinder
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:36:53 -
[29] - Quote
Clever idea! I always fitted cap rechargers or injectors over batteries simply because of the hefty fitting requirements (and a lot of pvp doesn't last long enough to run out of spare cap boosters anyway). |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1256
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:41:32 -
[30] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:72 CPU for t2 Med battery is still a joke. 90 CPU for t2 heavy is even more of a joke.
What do think players intend to sacrifice to fit that abomination, if competiors has 25/40 CPU cost and has additiona capacior measured by size of your cargohold.
small cap battery bonus is 1/4 of Navy 400 charge. Any cap hungry ship eats several charges during the fight. I've used that module only once, was disapointed. med cap battery bonus is 1/2 of Navy 800 charge. Any cap hungry ship eats several charges during the fight. Flat out useless, as capwar is appled to t2 logistics (no room to fit that abomination, and t3 cruisers (who can fit large one) large cap battery bonus is 1250 is still garbage for cap-boosting purpuses of BC above, good for t3 cruisers, if you still able to fit that, some hiche t2 hulls (given they still be able to fit that) could use added regen+resists to actually tank some neuts.
tl;dr untill you'll be able to facetank 1.5-2 appropriate sized neuts with added cap regen+resist with said modules, they will be of no use in any actal small-med scale PVP situation, because boosters are flat out better in cap injection during the fight. Only usable pvp niche is being fitted ready for capwar-intensive fleet battle, when only resistances matter and combined capfeed power of the feet (and that happens only in WH space).
PVE-wise only t3 hulls/small selection of t2 crusers (when you are operate w/o easy acces to cap charges or have no spare cargo room)
quite.. these need too be fittable on sub battleships too get any real use small/medium the cpu requirements are unrealistic when you have cap boosters out there.
- 50% e-war resists - double the cap - cpu closer too cap boosters
also consider adding a overheat function that injects from a cap reserve
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
|
|
H3llHound
Koshaku Tactical Narcotics Team
66
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:45:57 -
[31] - Quote
Fozzie, will the semiconductor memorycells rigs be changed aswell to provide boosts to neut resistance? |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
307
|
Posted - 2016.02.11 23:50:29 -
[32] - Quote
Going to have to compare these side by side to the current modules and other cap options, but they sound more useful in principle. The cpu requirements sound way too high though still. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
425
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:16:23 -
[33] - Quote
I like the concept but need to use them a bit more to find out if they are useful at their current PG and CPU levels. They definitely need to be significantly better in terms of their cap bonus. You've got to bear in mind how valuable a mid slot is in PvP, and so to even think about fitting one in the first place these have got to be good.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2968
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:21:16 -
[34] - Quote
I have to agree with the other posters about the requirements being way too high still. That was the main reason they were never used was the fitting requirements were 3-4 times higher than a cap recharger on CPU, and you had to sacrifice PG as well. You will still see low use with those CPU values. The PG values have gone up by a similar amount to the cap as well so you haven't really increased their efficiency much on PG either. |
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
56
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:39:13 -
[35] - Quote
This is by far the best tieracide I have seen so far in the upcoming patch. It really adds some spice to these once reject modules!
It's great to see the neutraliser resistance function is finally being realised. |
Kirzath
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 00:40:53 -
[36] - Quote
"Large Ld-Acid Cap Battery I" is missing 'Compact' in the name. |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
39
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:20:12 -
[37] - Quote
Why is the capacitor module added to minmatar lp stores instead of amarr lp stores? |
Zappity
Black Aces I N F A M O U S
2674
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:22:28 -
[38] - Quote
You guys have done a stellar job getting all of these module groups out at the same time. The energy warfare resistance is a great addition, I love that damage controls are going passive and the falloff addition to sensor damps is nice. Top job all round, thanks.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Sturmwolke
681
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:31:13 -
[39] - Quote
Too many new RF mods. I'm sensing a heavy bias? Why? * Cap warfare is an Amarr-ish specialization, makes little sense for RF to specialize in batteries..
*note Imperial Navy Cap Rechargers, Cap Relays etc. Are we to assume the Imperial Navy is incapable of producing good batteries? Come on. There should be at least an Imperial Navy version. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
556
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:31:50 -
[40] - Quote
STOP WITH THE MINMATAR BIAS FOR FUCKS SAKE. Why doesnt the master race of capacitor(amarr) have faction module in this line up?!
WHY!?
thats 3 more modules so far for the minmatar republic to wet its beak at the lp stores. seriously this is ridiculous fozzie.
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
|
Cristl
329
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:36:02 -
[41] - Quote
These still have super high fitting requirements. I would use the compact versions as the T1 baseline and see how that plays out on Sisi |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
368
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 01:58:24 -
[42] - Quote
I love the proposed revamp. I can think of a few armor tanking fits I would love to use these on if the numbers were right.
But, using a cap booster is going to provide better resistance to neuts in most cases anyway. And, on some ships that could really benefit from the battery, there does not seem to be a way to usefully fit the battery in the first place. On a dual armor rep Deimos, for instance, the battery would be incredibly useful, but with only 4 mid slots there's nothing you can get away with replacing.
The other big problem is, the CPU is too high on all of the sizes, and the PG is too high on the small variant. I think they would only be worth using if they had roughly the same fitting requirements as cap boosters (or maybe with slightly more CPU but similar PG). To be honest, to really be worthwhile instead of a cap booster, the battery needs to provide more resistance to neut pressureGÇösuch as in the range of 30% or more.
Lower CPU, lower PG on the small, and higher neut resistance are my suggestions. |
Rovain Sess
Kameiran Order Team Amarrica
42
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:10 -
[43] - Quote
Maybe just do this:
Hey, all you newer players; or any players thinking of joining FW, we as game developers are asking - actually sorta coercing you to favor the Minmatar. Just to show that we are serious about our desire to aid this faction - we will add items to their LP stores that many a pilot would like to have. Please remember that we can't directly support a side - but - hey actions don't speak louder than words.
Maybe its me - but i'm becoming more and more disallusioned by the term - "Balanced".
Fin |
Anomilk Dairlylover
Lazerhawks
15
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:00:53 -
[44] - Quote
I'm a bit sad that most of this tiercide will actually end up being a general nerf. A lot of cruiser fits which relied on large cap batteries will have to use mediums instead, and old large >>> new mediums.
I hope the resist bonus works out well. The reflect is the sole reason why we put them on some of our doctrine ships.
Quote:This is actually a change that we began in December but there was a significant bug with it that we are fixing along with this Tiericide pass. Guess we know why they haven't been reflecting for past ~2 months |
Kibitt Kallinikov
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
16
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:24:07 -
[45] - Quote
General comment - CPU cost is huge. I assume this is to make small sized cap batteries still have meaningful cost on larger ships.
As for small size in general, there's no justification for a frigate to fit one as far as I can see. You sacrifice an entire tank's worth of fitting space. The only combat frig that could do it and benefit from it would be Hawk, though I doubt the fit would be very competitive. Your most likely candidate is the Thalia.
I would start thinking of cap batteries being akin to shield extenders in a passive fit. You generally want to fit your size, and it has to have a huge impact but because of fitting restraints, you can't fit many at all. I'd say, make the GJ increase even higher for their respective sizes, maybe by 15% of the values you have here. |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:24:29 -
[46] - Quote
Cap boosters & cap recharges & capacitor power relays & power diagnostics and neuts & nos are Amarrian or true sansha, why the hell batteries suddenly minmatar and not Amarr or sansha?
as well it needs more capacitor (10% more) or less cpu requirements
sry for my English :-(
|
Alexis Nightwish
406
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 02:27:58 -
[47] - Quote
Came expecting cap batteries to be worth their fitting cost. Left disappointed.
(PS Fozzie, no one uses them because they suck. Make the not suck and maybe we will)
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3495
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:04:06 -
[48] - Quote
i can't imagine minmatar can build batteries
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
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1068
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 03:25:43 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:...We are also adding faction cap batteries for the Republic Fleet, Dominations and Thukker Tribe....
Is there a reason why minmatar are getting those? Those should me modules for the Amarr Navy or Sanshas or Blood Raider since the Amarr are the masters of capacitor and the barbariens have no use for capacitor anyways.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Jajuka Cirim
23
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 04:00:28 -
[50] - Quote
Why is Small the only class that gets two Meta 6 storylines? Just not worried about providing for niche fits on larger ships? |
|
Trajan Unknown
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
75
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 05:41:32 -
[51] - Quote
Make them useful by rethinking the fitting costs, give them to Amarr as stated by several others and we will be happy.
If cap batteries would be less effective than cap boosters but have a better sustain it would be perfect I-¦d say. With the current numbers I can-¦t see any fit who could replace any module for the battery. 40CPU is pretty harsh to fit. |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
553
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:01:28 -
[52] - Quote
Thukker Tribe? Why not stick them in the equally pointless Khanid LP store? At least it would make sense thematically.
Also I agree with others, these aren't competitive with cap injectors yet. Not at these fitting costs... |
Lauren Vaille
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:10:03 -
[53] - Quote
One thing I've always disliked about the smaller batteries is that they're mostly useless compared to cap rechargers.
I'm very fond of sticking a large battery on my dual rep VNI or ishtar (ESPECIALLY the ishtar thanks to its already low cap recharge time) but when I've tried using say a small battery on a frigate or a medium on a cruiser, the benefits just aren't there.
The neut resistance is a nice start, don't get me wrong - I don't think any pilot alive (or even CCP) could tell you exactly how the reflection mechanic works right now, but right now the batteries of a given class are just not worth using on the same class of ship - a small battery is no way near as useful on a small ship as a compact medium variant is, and a large battery is only useful on a cruiser.
They do bugger all compared to cap rechargers on a battleship - like my Hyperion here - a cap recharger is better in every way. (shh I have no blasters handy where I am atm)
http://i.imgur.com/ZoG1sIg.png
Even compared to power diagnostic systems, they're kinda crap. Power diags give a capacitor capacity increase, AND recharge rate increase, AND do the same for shields, AND give a power grid boost - for a significantly reduced fitting cost.
I do not believe the changes proposed will increase their use or versatility. They are either a niche use case for active tanked ships with already good recharge and plenty of spare fitting room, OR they are a way for carriers to bounce back some of those annoying geddon and bhaal neuts.
As was addressed in your criticism of ECCM in literally the next thread over, while you do get an inherent bonus to cap recharge thanks to the capacity bonus, it's not really significant enough to make it so that someone fitting a cap battery with their large fitting costs simply in the hopes that they will run into an enemy with neuts will spent their trip going 'oh man i'm so glad I had this extra +2 per second cap recharge instead of a web, or a shield extender, or an MWD instead of an afterburner' (since battery bonuses are ******** to stack with MWD's as well)
However, if you added a recharge rate bonus, even a very slight one, similar to a power diagnostic system (say even 3-5%) then I believe you would have a significantly more useful module, that would be very enticing for people to fit on their ships given enough fitting room.
Since the neut resistances are going to be good (plus I see you're adding to the cap provided by the mods by a moderate amount), I would say go on the lower end of the spectrum - perhaps between 3 and 5%, maybe 7.5% on the faction modules.
This would make the modules much more viable when considering between them, cap boosters and cap rechargers, as well as power diagnostic systems - even on the larger ships which don't benefit so much from an increased capacitor amount as opposed to recharge rate bonuses.
Also, it would make it worthwhile to use the same sized cap battery for the ship that they were going on, WITHOUT risking gimping the fit of the ship - sure, fitting a large battery would give cap for days on any smaller ship after these changes, but combined with your proposed powergrid requirement increases this would severely limit the options when trying to complete the fit.
As a follow on to this, it would also make it viable to use them with microwarp drives, because while you would be fitting a hefty module onto your ship which your MWD then neuts (lol) 50% of the bonuses of, you could still get that tiny bit of cap recharge rate to help counteract it.
CCP, I love these modules and see they have a lot of potential, but I do think that to encourage their more widespread use and make them actually viable when compared to either cap boosters or rechargers, I strongly recommend making this last adjustment.
tl;dr to make these modules less of a niche than they are now and a viable alternative to either cap boosters or cap rechargers, simply make it so they have a tiny amount of cap recharge in addition to the current changes.
|
Uriam Khanid
New Machinarium Corporation
24
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 06:42:43 -
[54] - Quote
did a quick check on fits with new batteries: Large batteries are ok. Medium and small batteries need to downsize the CPU for fitting. 50 nad 60 CPU for small battery is very-very strange. 35-45% of frig CPU by one module? strange. 60 CPU for medium battery II will be in fine.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 07:31:06 -
[55] - Quote
This is DEFFINITELY a step in the right direction, but not enough of a step. Their fitting cost to benefit is still very bad. I think the benefits they provide are perfect though, from a slot cost perspective. They could use about 15% less cpu and grid cost across the board for their current benefits. I think that would make them a great cap booster alternative for a good number of ships. Dual rep and laser ships would still need boosters, while cap free ships would like the passive defense for their hardners and props. |
Cyrek Ohaya
Blazing Sun Group
21
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 07:58:10 -
[56] - Quote
It hasn't been mentioned yet on this thread but anything that improves buffer such as armor/shield or capacitor is somewhat connected to their corresponding remote assisted module. What cap warfare needs, in fleets specially is a way to tell a player how much capacitor another fleetmate has in their stores much like how much hit points they have on my Watch List, I know ship scanners exist to provide that information but cmon, we need some quality of life changes. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2320
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:16:08 -
[57] - Quote
Lauren Vaille wrote:One thing I've always disliked about the smaller batteries is that they're mostly useless compared to cap rechargers.
I'm very fond of sticking a large battery on my dual rep VNI or ishtar (ESPECIALLY the ishtar thanks to its already low cap recharge time) but when I've tried using say a small battery on a frigate or a medium on a cruiser, the benefits just aren't there.
I cannot agree there, at least with my "limited" experience in them. I use a Small T2 Battery on my Astero to run Blood Raider DEDs and it works surprisingly well at reducing the neutralizer pressure from the long range neutralizer cruisers.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
1008
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 08:58:57 -
[58] - Quote
I had a single ship that has ever fitted a battery and thats a C3 ratting EOS ... pretty rare in of its self lol
No chance of fitting it now... none zero zip....
Buffs are nice but you took with the other hand and made them impossible to fit...
ADD THE BUFFS >>> KEEP THE FITTING THE SAME!!!!
No Worries
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
309
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 09:29:53 -
[59] - Quote
So, had a closer look at the numbers - these are better than I first thought. Each level gives significantly more cap bonus than the current ones, it's not just a case of being pointless unless you oversize now. There is also huge variation in the fitting requirements of different meta levels that will open up some options. That Thukker large battery is very strong looking - although I think the fact it's minmatar faction is crazy, surely it should be Amarr Navy / Blood Raiders from a lore perspective?
Fozzie - please can you update the OP to include the before/after stats for comparison? I think it would really help here. |
Vulfen
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
183
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 09:39:27 -
[60] - Quote
Fozzie Please can you clarify the cap resistance stat.
Here they are both listed as the same value (25% on T2) however on the existing modules you have 25% nos 12.5% neut resistances. Does this mean now that they 2 values of resistance will be the same? i.e you will reflect 25% on both a nos and a neut. |
|
LT Sly
TunDraGon
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 09:50:48 -
[61] - Quote
They are primarily used for the neut resist, not the cap bonus. I don't think there have been any good applications other than fitting 3-4 on a heavily neuted capital. This will change with the introduction of stacking penalties, capital cap boosters and no in-fight refitting.
Unless you're planning to add the neut resist to Bastion/Triage/Siege I think a Rig would be a lot better. I'm thinking mostly about armor Marauders and Capitals, cap hungry local tank and 100% chance to get blobbed.
Take the resist and put it on a Rig.
A rig could be an interesting option in exchange for rep performance, capacitor enhancements, dps or mobility without crippling them like the loss of a mid slot would in most cases. |
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2151
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:27:45 -
[62] - Quote
Neutralizers resistance is a much needed tool but i feel the numbers are a little low.
I wish Ancillary armour repairers didn't require cap because coupled with this neut resistance, we could see some interesting armour ships.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Anthar Thebess
1454
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 10:38:01 -
[63] - Quote
My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
427
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:27:06 -
[64] - Quote
Nice, how you kept the energy neut/nos resistance % on par Do not forget these modules can be used for anti-gank fits while traveling.
Regards, a Freelaner
Eve online is :
A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online
D) CCP Games pay More to win at skill training time, now with instant gratification
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
429
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 13:59:23 -
[65] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
I really like this idea.
But , beyond that, I want to quote someone else...
FT Cold wrote:These still aren't going to be useful. The cap bonuses only work out to be about 15% of their respective size classes' capacitor. Even combined with their cap war resistance, they're still going to be extremely weak compared to cap injectors. In the niche instances you'd want to have a cap war resistance, a cap injector would probably still be a better choice. Moreover, the powergrid requirements for frigates are punishing, small, medium and large variants have far, far too high CPU costs. What were you guys thinking? I just want to go off that. These modules aren't used because they are NOT useful and their fitting cost is astronomical. You get better benefits out of existing modules that have almost zero fitting requirements.
People have complained in the past that ECCM modules weren't useful outside of actually getting jammed. Where sensor boosters and tracking computers countered their respective EWAR, they still provided a bonus to the ship regardless. These batteries currently do very little for a ship not being neuted, and do not do enough for a ship that is currently being neuted.
...considering the fitting cost for the batteries.
My first choice would be to go with Anthar Thebess's idea I quoted above. It's creative, fun, and interactive, so countering neuts is viable and rewards piloting more than simply turning on a module. I don't know if you guys can code that in. If you can't, then I'm going to have to say this...fitting costs need to be half of what they are now, not increased. Every discussion I've seen of cap batteries has revolved around that one sticking point. Even if you buff them to the point where they gave neut IMMUNITY, people wouldn't use them widely because cap injectors work better and still benefit you if you use high-capacitor modules/weapons anyway.
For the pittance of benefit the batteries provide, gutting their fitting cost is the only way to make them competitive with the other tools on the table. If you don't slash the fitting costs, these modules will still be that Loch Ness Monster of the EvE Universe. "Hey man, you won't believe this, I saw a person with a capacitor battery equipped!" "No way man, that stuff isn't real, everybody knows that."
Until you make them vastly easier to fit, it doesn't matter what you do to them. They'll only be on extremely niche fits.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
366
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 15:03:14 -
[66] - Quote
Gonna chime in to say that these should be amarr flavored mods. While they are the least likely to fit them because of having the lowest cpu and fewest number of midslots........
Amarr
2 drone mods neuts nos armor mods injector cap relay cap recharger lasers
Minmatar
points webs painters prop mods cap batteries most armor mods shield mods overdrive/nano tracking enhancer projectiles launchers BCUs
That's a list of the mods once everything is in. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
558
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 16:06:50 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:Is it safe to assume that there will be stacking penalty on the nos/neut resistance? Yup it gets the same kind of stacking interaction as armor/shield hardeners.
Will we be getting the nos/neut resistance added to the fitting window, or will it remain a hidden stat that we have to guesstimate where we are at?
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:12:00 -
[68] - Quote
After some extensive number crunching for the Large ( no crunching was needed for Med and Small). These are still a MASSIVE joke.
The grid/cpu cost on the small is an absolute joke. An average of about 25% of the grid fitting available to most frigates and close to 35% of the cpu fitting. For what amounts to 2 cap rechargers and a BS neut still takes all your cap from you.
The grid/cpu cost on the Medium is "better". But thats like saying a lobotomy is better than a bullet to the head. 20% of your cpu and 10% of your grid MIGHT be worth trading for a caprecharger and a half IF neuts didn't affect you. But a pair of BS neuts still take all your cap on the second cycle. with or without the battery.
The large batteries are.... ok? ish? maybe? Its still A SINGLE CAP RECHARGER for the fitting cost of a god damn PROP. the cpu of an MWD and the grid of an afterburner.... and you want us to pay that for a single cap recharger worth of cap and what is little more than a stiff middle finger to neuts? sorry... If you're worried about fitting oversize versions if you buff these to much to be worth it, then this should be a separate non-sized module. there are already TONS of % only modules in the game. the power diagnostic is a great module because of this.
Run this by the rest of the playerbase and see what they think:
all these modules have NO fitting requirements. 0/0 on cpu/grid. Instead, they have fitting penalties to accompany their bonuses.
Capacitor Batteries I
-5% cpu -5% pg 20% neut/nos ewar resistance +12.5% capacitor capacity +10% capacitor recharge
Ld-Acid restrained Capacitor Batteries I
-4% cpu -4% pg 25% neut/nos ewar resistance +17.5% capacitor capacity +15% capacitor recharge
Capacitor Batteries II
-6% cpu -6% pg 30% Neut/nos ewar resistance +25% capacitor capacity +20% capacitor recharge
--- "Capacitor batteries enhance and supplement your ships internal capacitor systems with reinforced capacitors that reduce the affect of capacitor warfare" --- (flavor text)
Remember that the slot you fit them into is one of the greatest fitting costs a module can have. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1258
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 18:17:54 -
[69] - Quote
perhaps consider making it a lowslot mod along with my proposed changes
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
|
Alex Harumichi
Icecream Audit Office
34
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 20:32:36 -
[70] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
I like this idea. Needs fine-tuning, but that sort of "rechargable extra emergency battery" would be both useful and something a bit new.
|
|
Circumstantial Evidence
255
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:04:27 -
[71] - Quote
I agree with many others here, that the fitting requirements still seem high vs benefits. I use these occasionally on some cap limited highsec travel fits to get across 100+ au warps, but it's extremely rare that I would put one on a pvp fit; I don't see that changing. |
Zetakya
Echelon Research SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 16:05:13 -
[72] - Quote
I predict these will either be under fitted purely for resists, or over fitted for the cap on those few ships (Rook) that can fit them.
The usefulness of the appropriately sized version is roughly nil.
What would be more useful is if they also gave a bonus to cap transfer received.
Edit 1: You could also do with implementing an "Advanced Energy Grid Upgrades" skill to reduce PG use (basic "Energy Grid Upgrades" reduces CPU use)
Edit 2: While we are thinking about these modules, can you also consider the question of why Capacitor Batteries (a cap mod) require Energy Grid Upgrades, while Micro Auxiliary Power Cores (a Grid mod) require Capacitor Management? |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
557
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 19:56:49 -
[73] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Edit (added): CCP Fozzie, can you take a look at how many Micro Cap Battery - Tech 2 exist? Along with other rare (on the market at least) "micro" parts, this is a niche collectible that tiericide converts to a very common counterpart, destroying any perceived uniqueness or value. If stocks in player inventory match the market perception of rarity, would you consider a conversion to an Officer part? (err, well, something higher meta...)
No. When people speculate, they risk getting burned. That's why it's called speculating and not investing.
|
CaesarGREG2
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 00:41:41 -
[74] - Quote
1.First of all i see very big change in PowerGrid usage in Learge modules was 275 on T2 module now 400+ PG?
2.Good change in resistances biger ones 20-27% :) NICE
3.Where are capital ones?
4.But NOS and Energy neutralizers should NOT have asame resistance WHY? NOS dont use your cap , Neutralizers yes. |
Crazy KSK
Tsunami Cartel
100
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 06:30:44 -
[75] - Quote
they still suck
their fitting is so silly high that I wouldn't consider fitting one if it gave twice the amount of cap with maybe 40% less pg/cpu on t2 I could see them finding use though
or consider the old stats with a cpu reduction 275pg 50cpu 700cap for t2 large sounds alright
furthermore: XL version, 1250 cap is not enough for a BS to be worth a slot its only about 1/5th of a megas cap
Quote CCP Fozzie:
... The days of balance and forget are over.
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
903
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 08:28:39 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We are also adding faction cap batteries for the Republic Fleet, Dominations and Thukker Tribe.
It doesn't make a great deal of sense to me that 3 factions famed for their non-reliance on cap to make cap batteries. Wouldn't it fit better to make them Amarrian or Gallente?
Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
|
Shimrod Ombreflamme
Kaerizaki Corporate Silent Infinity
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 09:00:40 -
[77] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:72 CPU for t2 Med battery is still a joke. 90 CPU for t2 heavy is even more of a joke.
I agree with this.
CPU and PWG needed is too high, please DO NOT make it higher. No one will use these modules... |
Solarus Explorer
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
11
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 09:11:33 -
[78] - Quote
My sentiments tend to coincide with the poster above........ "These batteries currently do very little for a ship not being neuted, and do not do enough for a ship that is currently being neuted."
They're still pretty useless across the board, not-withstanding the absurd fitting costs.
Possibly an armor FAX would use them (and that too the small ones since its only for the neut resist) alongwith a couple capital cap boosters, i doubt they will see any use on anything else. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Mercenary Coalition
302
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:10:52 -
[79] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:My two cents. No one will be rly using battery in this form. Module need big changes to be viable.
PROPOSAL: Make battery to work also as rechargeable cap booster. If ship is over 80% cap half of the capacitor recharge is stored in cap battery, when battery is full it allow player do inject all stored energy to recharge capacitor up to 80%.
New cap battery (all based on size: + cap bonus + nos/neut resist + excess capacitor storage and injection
nice idea.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1561
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:26:50 -
[80] - Quote
These things are in the same place as eccm you only fit them to counter a specific form of Ewar otherwise there are much better options for the firing cost.
This is how it is before this change and it will be no differant after
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
Thercon Jair
Nex Exercitus Memento Moriendo
9
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 14:41:31 -
[81] - Quote
How exactly is the "Capacitor Warfare Resistance" going to play out? Is it a reflect effect, or does it simply remove xx% from the amount that would have been neutralised without the modifier? |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
442
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 15:21:49 -
[82] - Quote
This may be our only opportunity to make these modules useful, so I'm not giving up on this yet. Fozzie, hear me out.
............................................PG........CPU....additional cap
Small cap battery II...........12..........60.........125 Small cap booster II...........5..........15..........100 (x3)
medium cap battery II.......90.........72..........500 medium cap booster II.....165.......25..........400 (x2)
large cap battery II.............480.......90..........1250 heavy cap booster II.........1925......40...........800 (x5)
Fozzie, do you understand now?
Cap boosters provide you additional cap on demand, so they are already the go-to counter for neuts. Think of them like armor repair modules. Small, medium, large sizes, "repair" your cap at different rates depending on size of module and booster loaded. Cap batteries, by comparison, are like armor hardeners. They don't boost your capacitor, they just make it harder to deplete (either from hostile sources, or running your equipment). Like an armor hardener doesn't increase your actual hitpoints, just makes it harder for a hostile source to chew through them. So while a cap booster is versatile, a cap battery is single-use, and useless even at that because it is out-performed by existing (and perfectly balanced) equipment.
YOU ARE TREATING RESISTANCE MODULES LIKE REPAIR MODULES AND THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL REASON YOUR PROPOSAL, AND BATTERIES AT LARGE, DO NOT WORK.
If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it (whether it be kinetic damage, explosive, etc). That's what cap boosters do. If you run high-cap equipment and get close to capping yourself out, you boost. If someone neuts you, you boost as necessary. Batteries will never be able to match that sort of functionality, yet in some cases your fitting cost for batteries is far higher.
Here is my version of your proposal. Numbers to be tweaked later, these are just to start.
............................................PG........CPU....additional cap Small cap battery II...........3............10.........150 medium cap battery II......90..........10.........500 large cap battery II............500........10.........1250
The CPU has been flattened out, since the primary benefit of these modules(neut resistance) is the same across all module sizes. That means the benefit of additional cap is related to the powergrid, and has been accordingly sized compared to the best alternative (cap boosters). Keeping in mind these modules must always have much less fitting than boosters since they offer almost nothing to compete against them, this is what your proposal should look like.
With your current proposal, the only module of any consequence is the small tech-2, since that provides the resistance benefit people are looking for. That may be the only module that sees ANY use. Why use medium or large for pittance additional cap, when you get the same resistance from a small or micro?
If you want to do this correctly, you're going to have to dispense with the small/medium/large altogether. Convert batteries to "insulated capacitor nodes" that only give neut resistance and not additional cap (PWG and CPU like shield or armor hardeners), and have your normal meta versions, and be done with it. If you won't do that, you're going to have to start with my proposal and work from there to have any success with these modules, or it's a failure right out of the gate.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13893
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 16:30:55 -
[83] - Quote
Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1072
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 17:42:15 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
Thank you, now they look much more accessable!
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
443
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:05:09 -
[85] - Quote
I appreciate the second run on the stats.
However...
The small cap battery still requires more and provides less than a small cap booster. And for the fitting resources needed for the medium and large, you're better off fitting other mods still (again, especially cap boosters). If you think you're going to be neuted, a cap booster is necessary and these modules do not replace those. And since boosters already take up a lot of resources and provide a lot of benefit, there is no remaining need for these. There just isn't any justification for fitting them, even with these reduced costs. For the PWG and CPU of a medium, I'd be better off using that slot and/or fitting resources to put in extenders, tracking computers, almost anything else.
Heck, even with the stats I offered a few posts above, I probably still wouldn't use them, because the available options are better in almost all conceivable scenarios.
The only scenario I can see these modules working out better than a cap battery is where you are in an extraordinarily narrow window where you're being neuted, so the resistance is there to help. But...you're far enough away that the hostile is in deep falloff for his neuts and he's still trying anyway. And your resistance to the neut has to leave you with more cap than fitting a cap recharger would have. Any heavier neuting and the resistance won't help and you'd be better served by boosters, any less neuting and the cap recharger would have been a better choice. Even stacking multiple small batteries is a waste of midslots and fitting resources compared to the sorts of sacrifices you'd make by not having something else more useful in those mids.
I must reiterate my previous comment. Divorce the resist part of the mods from the capacitor extender part. Give us midslot resist mods (Insulated capacitor nodes) that are identical in fitting to cap rechargers and up the resistance to like 30% for tech II. Then give us slowslot versions (insulated capacitor wiring) that aren't as good or have drawbacks, that range from 15-20% so we have options in our fitting.
You've married shield extenders to EM ward fields, and it's just not going to work.
BUT
I saw people post positively about these modules earlier in the thread. Please people, share with me your stories, things that happened to you, where THESE modules would have been better for you than any other option. I want to know what you've encountered that tells you these are the best fit. I want to know which scenarios have unfolded where these were the preferred choice, because I don't see it.
Make me a believer. I'm here, and I'm all ears.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
ChromeStriker
Out of Focus Odin's Call
1008
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 18:13:36 -
[86] - Quote
Hey Fozzie...
I still have an issue, where i would have fit a large before, i now cant fit one.... and a medium is a downgrade on the old large (of course the neut resist is still a great fix)....
What i mean is that to make batteries useful (before) we had to use a size larger... for example on BC's now, a medium is too small... and a large is too hard to fit....
No Worries
|
MRxX7XxMONKEY
Sleepless Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 19:04:56 -
[87] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
at this point these things are costing CPU wise LESS than what they cost now for larges (75 for t2 right now, 60 after), while the PG cost is nearly 200% of original. I'd say that maybe the CPU reduction was a tad too much, but the PG, man, dropping it down by 50 or 60 for the larges would probably do well. You cant really fit them on BCs or t3s anymore (except for spending a lot on the faction versions, which, I guess, wont be as much of a problem if you make their LP price accessible :) but, no idea on that), and the mediums are so much significantly worse than current larges that theyre not really usable on those ships
edit: alternatively, you could make the mediums give more cap, the difference in cap bonus between the larges and mediums is pretty crazy |
Trajan Unknown
Rifterlings Zero.Four Ops
76
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:14:35 -
[88] - Quote
I think the only decision a player should make is, do I want sustainability = cap battery or do I want a quick burst = cap booster. Making the fitting costs so different and giving me as a player such a handicap for using a cap battery feels super bad. But maybe I am overlooking something here. But as it stands now I don-¦t even think of fitting a cap battery on smaller ships simply because I can-¦t without crippling my fit hard.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:26:59 -
[89] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:
If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it.
Comparing capacitor tanking with classical damage tanking is actually a great point of view. Capacitor is extremely simplistic (having only 1 damage type), but still functions almost identically to shield tanking. You have a buffer of GJ, with a recharge curve along the whole of the buffer. As it stands (given that 99.999% of the player base considers them beyond useless), there are no resist mods or buffer mods for capacitor. So the template needs to be Shield buffer and repair modules. Since most pilots will agree that they are fairly balanced among themselves.
Large ASB...........100Cpu ... 150 PG.... boosts a total of 3510 hp across 32 seconds with a 60 second reload. (92 seconds to get back to square 1)
Large SE ............45Cpu ... 120 PG... adds a base of 2600 hp which upgrades hp/s passive recharge variably. (crusiers shoulder these 2 modules quite often and have a base shield of about what these modules provide 2500-3500)
Invuln ................. 44 Cpu ... 1 PG ...... reduces incoming damage by 30%.
Cap boosters should be treated like a shield booster. It is functionally identical in operation and intent. It pulses a large amount of hp/gj into the pool to offset damage/neut and to aid natural recharge shield/cap with a single mid slot item. Since we are looking at Large ASB and SE which are often found on cruisers. lets look at the medium CB.
Medium CB .............25Cpu ... 165 PG... boosts a total of 1200 gj across 36 seconds with 10 second reload. (navy 400) (cruisers typically have 1500-1800 capacitor in total)
With only a 10 second reload, these can be considered to have an almost permanent upkeep. unlike ASBs. And now you want to add a buffer resist combo module. After all, cap warfare is far simpler and uses far less slots. we don't need a whole lot of complexity and granularity in this regard. space for midslots is already hard enough to come by. 1 module would be more than sufficient. What would it have to look like to be balanced? Lots of people fit LSE and lots of people fit ASB. It all depends on how you're flying and what kind of ship you're in. But EVERYBODY fits cap boosters if there is even a vague chance they will be under neut pressure. or even not. A lot of people set aside a slot for that ubiquitously.
Medium Battery II .................... 50 Cpu ... 150 PG ... adds a base of 1000 gj and provides 25% resist to capacitor warfare.
BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.
Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist
None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally. |
Zetakya
Echelon Research SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:41:16 -
[90] - Quote
A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;
Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?
In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value? |
|
Circumstantial Evidence
258
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:49:17 -
[91] - Quote
High fitting cost parts compete with every other high fitting cost part. I don't know if I'm going to face a cap warfare situation in any particular engagement, but getting shot at is near certainty. So, tanking parts and HP usually take fitting priority. |
Helsinki Atruin
Assisted Suicide Services Epicenter.
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:51:11 -
[92] - Quote
so you know how when you fit an oversized afterburner you get more speed than the percentage the module lists, if you could give some kind of benefit like that for energy warfare resistance, it would probably help. Basically, at the cost tons of fitting, you get tons of energy warfare resistance. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1260
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 20:59:23 -
[93] - Quote
its good that you listened fozzie, thread feedback often is ignored or you get the dodgy overbuffing/ keeping officer webs.. BUT... these mods still demand too much fitting and are out classed by cap boosters all the way even with the rather small e-war resist (considering fitting 1 is hard enough) .. i think the only way these are desirable is as a alternative too a cap relay, think of it as a passive cap booster .. which is what low slots are usually passive modules rather than the active midslots..
- lowslots - buff cap pool or maybe its fine as a lowslot - buff e-war resists - reduce cpu and pg requirements substantially
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
|
Alexis Nightwish
421
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:39:54 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values. Looking over the new numbers here's the feedback:
The CPU and PG for the smalls is still too high, and the cap bonus too low. I would never equip one because a cap booster does more for less, and the resist bonus of the battery wouldn't stop a cruiser or larger from blapping my cap anyway which is the primary reason to equip one on a frig.
The fitting for the mediums look about right, but I would lower the cap bonus by about 15% of what you have listed.
For the larges the CPU is about right, but they need to cost a LOT more PG. I know you guys just ******* love cruisers, but cruisers (which typically have under 500 base capacitor) should not be able to equip a mod that gives them another 1100!
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 21:54:21 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far! We agree with many of you that the fitting costs in this first pass were still too high. I had decreased the CPU costs compared to the TQ versions but I spent too much focus on comparing to their old values instead of looking at the bigger picture.
We've put together a second pass with vastly decreased CPU costs across the board (the biggest decreases for Small modules). The OP has been updated with the new values.
A great start. Still, these are pretty niche. For a battleship sized module fit to a battleship with average an capacitor, as an example, were still talking about reducing a single heavy neut's neuting capacity by about 5gj a sec and giving the hull an extra cap booster and a half's worth of cap, along with a couple of gj a sec in regen. In comparison to a t2 cap booster, the gained delta vs a single unbonused heavy neut is about 7gj a sec vs 33.5 pre-heat, 46 with heat for the booster in terms of expected cap drain vs applied cap drain, disregarding the hull's base regen. Also, two gj a sec in a 7 a sec figure are for a ship at peak regen, we could realistically round this number down. For a hypothetical fit with four of these modules the gained delta looks better at about 21 gj a sec vs a single heavy neut, vs two neuts the efficiency ratio drops significantly because the cap regen can only be counted once, around 33gj a sec vs 50gj a sec in unmitigated cap drain. The ratio continues to decrease as the number of heavy neuts goes up.
Yeah, you might last a couple more neut cycles with one of these fitted, and I know people are going to say that cap charges will deplete, but 20 cap charges with a t2 cap booster will last almost five minutes without heat. I know fights may last much longer, and these modules could immensely benefit from cap chaining logi, but they're competing for extremely valuable mid slots, and I'd like to see more of a fitting choice vs. cap boosters.
Vs extreme neuting power, such as against a bhaal without talismans, fit with 7 heavy neuts, we're talking about a cap drain of 280gj a sec and an alpha of about 6700gj. For a geddon, its about 175gj a sec with an alpha of 4200. A bhaal will still be able to neut another battleship dry in two cycles even with four cap batteries fit and the target ship will experience a net cap drain of almost 130gj a sec excluding the ship's natural regen.
Maybe you can allay my fears, but I still think that for a module that's designed to somewhat counter cap warfare, this is going to be too weak to do the job. Not trying to appear caustic here, I just have a hard time believing these are going to matter much for capacitor battles fed by guardians or triage, or for small gang situations where a player feels they might want a special unpredictable edge. |
Circumstantial Evidence
258
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:21:15 -
[96] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:... For the larges the CPU is about right, but they need to cost a LOT more PG. I know you guys just ******* love cruisers, but cruisers (which typically have under 500 base capacitor) should not be able to equip a mod that gives them another 1100! I don't see a problem: it's the same sort of tradeoff as fitting a battleship-sized AB/MWD on a cruiser. It would consume a huge amount of fitting capacity, demanding sacrifices elsewhere.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2977
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:38:29 -
[97] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.
Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist
None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.
These are some very good comparative numbers, Fozzie please look at and acknowledge them. With the lower reload on cap boosters currently I'd compensate by seriously dropping the Battery fittings so they can actually be included in a normal fit instead of a cap booster. And then people 'might' use them for logistics reasons. |
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
49
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:40:29 -
[98] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:... For the larges the CPU is about right, but they need to cost a LOT more PG. I know you guys just ******* love cruisers, but cruisers (which typically have under 500 base capacitor) should not be able to equip a mod that gives them another 1100! I don't see a problem: it's the same sort of tradeoff as fitting a battleship-sized AB/MWD on a cruiser. It would consume a huge amount of fitting capacity, demanding sacrifices elsewhere.
In their current development iteration I can see the large size used on a few hac fits; the deimos, ishtar, sac, maybe in a few edge cases the eagle. For other cruisers, the base regen of their cap is too low for them to be competitive with a cap booster, even under neut pressure. |
Kalen Pavle
Quam Singulari Triumvirate.
73
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:45:52 -
[99] - Quote
How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?
We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.
A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5687
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 22:58:54 -
[100] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:I appreciate the second run on the stats.
However...
The small cap battery still requires more and provides less than a small cap booster. And for the fitting resources needed for the medium and large, you're better off fitting other mods still (again, especially cap boosters). If you think you're going to be neuted, a cap booster is necessary and these modules do not replace those. And since boosters already take up a lot of resources and provide a lot of benefit, there is no remaining need for these. There just isn't any justification for fitting them, even with these reduced costs. For the PWG and CPU of a medium, I'd be better off using that slot and/or fitting resources to put in extenders, tracking computers, almost anything else.
Heck, even with the stats I offered a few posts above, I probably still wouldn't use them, because the available options are better in almost all conceivable scenarios.
The only scenario I can see these modules working out better than a cap battery is where you are in an extraordinarily narrow window where you're being neuted, so the resistance is there to help. But...you're far enough away that the hostile is in deep falloff for his neuts and he's still trying anyway. And your resistance to the neut has to leave you with more cap than fitting a cap recharger would have. Any heavier neuting and the resistance won't help and you'd be better served by boosters, any less neuting and the cap recharger would have been a better choice. Even stacking multiple small batteries is a waste of midslots and fitting resources compared to the sorts of sacrifices you'd make by not having something else more useful in those mids.
I must reiterate my previous comment. Divorce the resist part of the mods from the capacitor extender part. Give us midslot resist mods (Insulated capacitor nodes) that are identical in fitting to cap rechargers and up the resistance to like 30% for tech II. Then give us slowslot versions (insulated capacitor wiring) that aren't as good or have drawbacks, that range from 15-20% so we have options in our fitting.
You've married shield extenders to EM ward fields, and it's just not going to work.
BUT
I saw people post positively about these modules earlier in the thread. Please people, share with me your stories, things that happened to you, where THESE modules would have been better for you than any other option. I want to know what you've encountered that tells you these are the best fit. I want to know which scenarios have unfolded where these were the preferred choice, because I don't see it.
Make me a believer. I'm here, and I'm all ears.
While I think your conclusion is correct (that injectors are a superior module overall for 95% of applications), it is worth pointing out that with the way cap maths runs, these batteries increase your cap regen per second as well as your total pool of capacitor.
This may make them superior to injectors in fights you expect to be protracted and may give these modules a home on Marauders.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1260
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:00:47 -
[101] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?
We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.
A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate.
like i pointed out in my last post
- midslots are always active mods - lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)
so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it
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
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1569
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:10:28 -
[102] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote:
If an explosive armor membrane cost that much fitting resources to use, you'd never use them. You'd just double-up on repair modules that repair your armor no matter what depleted it.
Comparing capacitor tanking with classical damage tanking is actually a great point of view. Capacitor is extremely simplistic (having only 1 damage type), but still functions almost identically to shield tanking. You have a buffer of GJ, with a recharge curve along the whole of the buffer. As it stands (given that 99.999% of the player base considers them beyond useless), there are no resist mods or buffer mods for capacitor. So the template needs to be Shield buffer and repair modules. Since most pilots will agree that they are fairly balanced among themselves. Large ASB...........100Cpu ... 150 PG.... boosts a total of 3510 hp across 32 seconds with a 60 second reload. (92 seconds to get back to square 1) Large SE ............45Cpu ... 120 PG... adds a base of 2600 hp which upgrades hp/s passive recharge variably. (crusiers shoulder these 2 modules quite often and have a base shield of about what these modules provide 2500-3500) Invuln ................. 44 Cpu ... 1 PG ...... reduces incoming damage by 30%. Cap boosters should be treated like a shield booster. It is functionally identical in operation and intent. It pulses a large amount of hp/gj into the pool to offset damage/neut and to aid natural recharge shield/cap with a single mid slot item. Since we are looking at Large ASB and SE which are often found on cruisers. lets look at the medium CB. Medium CB .............25Cpu ... 165 PG... boosts a total of 1200 gj across 36 seconds with 10 second reload. (navy 400) (cruisers typically have 1500-1800 capacitor in total) With only a 10 second reload, these can be considered to have an almost permanent upkeep. unlike ASBs. And now you want to add a buffer resist combo module. After all, cap warfare is far simpler and uses far less slots. we don't need a whole lot of complexity and granularity in this regard. space for midslots is already hard enough to come by. 1 module would be more than sufficient. What would it have to look like to be balanced? Lots of people fit LSE and lots of people fit ASB. It all depends on how you're flying and what kind of ship you're in. But EVERYBODY fits cap boosters if there is even a vague chance they will be under neut pressure. or even not. A lot of people set aside a slot for that ubiquitously. Medium Battery II .................... 50 Cpu ... 150 PG ... adds a base of 1000 gj and provides 25% resist to capacitor warfare. BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use. Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.
However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2978
|
Posted - 2016.02.14 23:56:37 -
[103] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice
When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally. |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
570
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 02:07:22 -
[104] - Quote
Harvey James wrote: like i pointed out in my last post
- midslots are always active mods - lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)
so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it
I actually kind of like this. Make cap batteries low slot mods at the currently listed values and I could suddenly see a lot of fits that might use one. Not competing directly with injectors and precious mids might make the neut resist and passive regen bonus worth trading against, say, a 3rd damage mod or some armor resist. Or even replace a dcu, with the coming dcu changes too. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
447
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 02:24:29 -
[105] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice
When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally. The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.
Right now cap booster modules take a lot of fitting to install on an appropriate-sized vehicle, and therefore already take sacrifices to other parts of the ship to make sure you can use them. They are essential on 90% of PvP fits because running everything you need in an engagement (repair modules, prop mod, point, weapons, resist modules, ECCM) will already cap you out in a short time. You can pulse any or all of them, but even so your cap recharge will not keep up through the end of an engagement (unless you never really need to repair, in which case, kudos and good kill!). Which means...yes...you are going to need cap injections to keep the fight going.
So cap boosters and prop are already musts. That's two mids to start. Now your remaining mids must compete with long points, scrams, webs, a dual prop option, ECCM, tracking computers, tank, etc.
Where do you imagine fitting these batteries? I (and some others) have already said the only useful thing to do is to get a larger ship (like cruisers and up) and fit and undersized battery because it has low fitting requirements and gives you the neut resistance. But you could also just install a small cap booster instead because that will actually feed you cap (and still takes less fitting resources).
These batteries are being treated by the dev team as combined resist + buffer modules, which nobody "buffer tanks" their capacitor. They either boost it for acute engagements, or fit a recharger if doing drawn-own PvE stuff. We just want the resists, but the dev team is asking way too much of us with giving us the "extender" portion of the battery so they can justify these fitting numbers. The reality of this game is that the module the devs want to give us just won't work with how the game is played.
Again...I am listening and downright eager to hear anybody give me realistic and common usage scenarios where these batteries are actually a better option than cap boosters (or any other module). I want to be enlightened here. These batteries are cool in concept and I'd happily use them if I could justify it. But nothing presented here today is usable, and any PvP-intended ship that undocks with a battery appears to be a failfit from the start. But someone here has an idea in their head how they'd use these batteries, and I want to know. Please?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Lauren Vaille
Dutch East Querious Company Phoebe Freeport Republic
5
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 04:25:27 -
[106] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: However nerfing what is generally considered a balanced module just to make a week one an option isn't really the best choice
When Cap Boosters are considered a must fit on about 90% of PvP fits that indicates that there isn't actual balance on it at all. People just don't see the issue as obviously because it's 'hidden' and people don't want to nerf themselves normally. The exact same thing could be said of prop mods. Right now cap booster modules take a lot of fitting to install on an appropriate-sized vehicle, and therefore already take sacrifices to other parts of the ship to make sure you can use them. They are essential on 90% of PvP fits because running everything you need in an engagement (repair modules, prop mod, point, weapons, resist modules, ECCM) will already cap you out in a short time. You can pulse any or all of them, but even so your cap recharge will not keep up through the end of an engagement (unless you never really need to repair, in which case, kudos and good kill!). Which means...yes...you are going to need cap injections to keep the fight going. So cap boosters and prop are already musts. That's two mids to start. Now your remaining mids must compete with long points, scrams, webs, a dual prop option, ECCM, tracking computers, tank, etc. Where do you imagine fitting these batteries? I (and some others) have already said the only useful thing to do is to get a larger ship (like cruisers and up) and fit and undersized battery because it has low fitting requirements and gives you the neut resistance. But you could also just install a small cap booster instead because that will actually feed you cap (and still takes less fitting resources). These batteries are being treated by the dev team as combined resist + buffer modules, which nobody "buffer tanks" their capacitor. They either boost it for acute engagements, or fit a recharger if doing drawn-own PvE stuff. We just want the resists, but the dev team is asking way too much of us with giving us the "extender" portion of the battery so they can justify these fitting numbers. The reality of this game is that the module the devs want to give us just won't work with how the game is played. Again...I am listening and downright eager to hear anybody give me realistic and common usage scenarios where these batteries are actually a better option than cap boosters (or any other module). I want to be enlightened here. These batteries are cool in concept and I'd happily use them if I could justify it. But nothing presented here today is usable, and any PvP-intended ship that undocks with a battery appears to be a failfit from the start. But someone here has an idea in their head how they'd use these batteries, and I want to know. Please?
Well, you sort of answered your own question - short engagements. In PVP, you add more to your cap and a resistance to neuts - if you're punching out enough damage then it's quite possible you could kill the enemy ship before it has successfully neuted you out. Plus, the bonus from the extra cap does help your recharge rate, so there's that too.
In terms of PVE, you can do something like this and be more than 50% stable, compared to 30% with another cap recharger. This is what I used to roll around in high sec with.
[Ishtar, Ishtar purty in blue]
Centum C-Type Medium Armor Repairer Shadow Serpentis Armor Kinetic Hardener Shadow Serpentis Armor Thermal Hardener Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Corelum C-Type Medium Armor Repairer
Large Capacitor Battery II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II 10MN Y-S8 Compact Afterburner
Drone Link Augmentor II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] Drone Link Augmentor II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II Medium Capacitor Control Circuit II
Hammerhead II x5 Ogre II x5 Salvage Drone I x5 Hobgoblin II x5 Warrior II x5
Optimal Range Script x1 Tracking Speed Script x1 Sisters Core Scanner Probe x8
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2152
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 09:43:18 -
[107] - Quote
This is a good change for how cap batteries are now. However, i don't feel the different sizes are well balanced.
In a situation where the cap pool is not important and all you are interested in is neut resistance, there will be no incentive for you to fit the large battery then you can fit a small one for a fraction of the fitting cost. This situation will occur in drawn out engagements or where you other ships are feeding you capacitor.
For this reason i feel that cap battery resistance should increase with module size. No doubt my opinion/reasoning will fall on deaf ears but what's new.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
61
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 10:16:05 -
[108] - Quote
Hi Fozzie, thanks for the second pass on CPU requirements.
After a brief review of the new stats, I notice that the T2 version sticks out like a sore thumb on requirements. 60 CPU and over 400PG is waaaaay too high. It will never be employed as it stands. The T1 and T2 versions would benefit from fitting costs a bit closer to the faction versions.
Giving a small resist advantage to larger modules would be nice, too. Perhaps just 1 or 2 percentage points not to overdo it. Bear in mind that capacitor resist is not as effective as the old reflect mechanic. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2597
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 15:35:17 -
[109] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:
like i pointed out in my last post
- midslots are always active mods - lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods)
so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it
Cap recharger?
Passive shield resist?
Shield extenders?
Scanning upgrades?
Since when are those active?
Also, low slot active also have armor and hull reppers. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2281
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 15:54:48 -
[110] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Kalen Pavle wrote:How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?
We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.
A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate. like i pointed out in my last post - midslots are always active mods - lowslots are always passive (bar resist mods) so looking at cap batteries they are a passive but adds resists mod ... should be a lowslot module unless they add a inject function maybe a spool up timer or a reserve held back for when you want it
There are tons of mid slot modules which are passive. Your premise is false.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
|
Soldarius
O C C U P Y Test Alliance Please Ignore
1469
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 18:46:11 -
[111] - Quote
Zetakya wrote:A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;
Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?
In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value?
Falloff on neuts should be calculated first followed by your neut resist percentage. If it is not like this, I would be very very surprised.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2982
|
Posted - 2016.02.15 19:02:59 -
[112] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Zetakya wrote:A question regarding fall-off and cap resist;
Will the cap resist effect stack additively or multiplicatively with the reduction in cap neuted due to fall-off?
In other words, if you have 25% neut resist and are being neuted by someone who is at Optimal+(1.5*Falloff) and would normally neut 25% of the neuts listed value, will the neut fail, or will they neut 19.75% of the neuts listed value? Falloff on neuts should be calculated first followed by your neut resist percentage. If it is not like this, I would be very very surprised. If they are multiplied, order of effect is pretty irrelevant anyway. |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 08:26:36 -
[113] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.
No it can't. There are more than one kind of prop. Choosing which properties you want to emphasize on your ships mobility gives real benefit to the system. "props" are must haves. Just like "modules" are must haves. There are options. Currently, there are no cap options. Its cap booster or you have no cap.
Balancing out multiple 'cap' options would be wildly good for the game. and a nerf to cap boosters is probably a necessity at this point. The fact that they have existed in a vacuum with no competition is mainly why people don't see them as overpowered for their purpose. |
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
64
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 10:42:17 -
[114] - Quote
LoL. The second you suggest nerf to cap booster, you will be lynched by all of that oversized shield booster and dual/triple rep folks. That is one of the core tanking mechanics of the game.
Current proposed version benefit/cost ratio is way less than with booster or a cap rech.
There is several ways: 1) buff benefits 2) make fitting worh the benefits 3) do nothing and have something to do in next "balancing" pass. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
447
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 12:40:18 -
[115] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote: The exact same thing could be said of prop mods.
No it can't. There are more than one kind of prop. Choosing which properties you want to emphasize on your ships mobility gives real benefit to the system. "props" are must haves. Just like "modules" are must haves. There are options. Currently, there are no cap options. Its cap booster or you have no cap. And there's more than one cap mod. Cap recharger, cap flux coil, cap power relay, power diagnostic systems. Also, Nosferatu. You can say that some or all are either "crap" or "not optimal", but I can say the same of afterburners. Right now in this game, outside of niche cases, it's MWD or GTFO. If you have the fitting room to slap on an afterburner for dual-prop, it's considered a huge game changer in your favor. So if people have the sort of fitting room for a cap battery, they're more likely to dual-prop anyway. Which just further proves my point about these cap batteries as presented.
Quote:Balancing out multiple 'cap' options would be wildly good for the game. and a nerf to cap boosters is probably a necessity at this point. The fact that they have existed in a vacuum with no competition is mainly why people don't see them as overpowered for their purpose. Even if we disagree on the semantics of what's available, we do agree here. That's why I've been so fervently fighting in this thread to get cap batteries into something useful. I still believe the best way is to divorce the battery from the neut resist. We can have batteries (with reduced fitting) that act as cap buffer (plus maybe 5-10% neut resist?), and then lowslots for 20-30% neut resist mods with no added cap (insulated capacitor nodes, we'll call them), with officer variants going up to 37.5%, stacking penalties and all that.
If nerfing cap boosters is coming up for discussion solely to make another poor choice more viable, then you're probably already off to a bad start. I'm not saying it can't work, just that, well, it's not an optimal way to approach the subject. Cap batteries are important in PvP fights completely absent of any cap warfare, because as I mentioned earlier in the thread, these ship systems are balanced so you cap yourself out quickly. That's an important balancing part of the game - cap regen is weak so you can't go full-throttle everything without cap support in some form. And right now those ships' fitting are balanced around current cap booster requirements.
If you tweak cap boosters, you're likely to make a lot of ship balance fall apart like a collapsing Jenga tower. I don't think you want to start messing with something so central to PvP gameplay unless you're ready to re-tweak the balance of ships across all walks of life again, plus balancing all the new cap mods and cap warfare mods again after all the dust settled and once we know what we're playing with.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
82
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 22:11:41 -
[116] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: And there's more than one cap mod. Cap recharger, cap flux coil, cap power relay, power diagnostic systems. Also, Nosferatu.
You can say that some or all are either "crap" or "not optimal", but I can say the same of afterburners. Right now in this game, outside of niche cases, it's MWD or GTFO.
If nerfing cap boosters is coming up for discussion solely to make another poor choice more viable.
If you tweak cap boosters, you're likely to make a lot of ship balance fall apart like a collapsing Jenga tower.
I'm all for giving you the NOS as a cap option. Frigs use them to maintain tackle and hardeners a lot. But they never fuel lasers/hybrids or reps. They're just not for that. They're for keeping the lights on in the dark so to speak. BUT, the others you listed are wholesale NOT pvp modules. Saying that a cap flux coil is a cap option is like saying an overdrive injector is a prop.
Afterburners are an amazing prop for pvp. Especially on smaller ships that know their enemy will commit, and on acceleration gates. Not exactly "niche".
nerfing cap boosters is not coming up as an "option" to make another choice viable, its coming up as a pointed statement that NOTHING will ever compete with them until its utterly broken stat wise, or cap boosters are given a weakness. Of some kind. Even a small cooldown on cap boosters like 20 seconds could radically bring their power into line. Give neut ships a window of opportunity. Much like the ASB needs its window of opportunity for ships to start hitting armor and structure before the tank resumes.
If batteries are to truely be an option, they need to provide a gargantuan amount of buffer to force neuts to chew through. If that needs to be coupled with a cap recharge time nerf to balance GJ/S then that sounds great. +100% cap-cap and +100% cap recharge, 25% neut resist would be a great option. BS's would love that. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
188
|
Posted - 2016.02.16 23:21:02 -
[117] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote: And there's more than one cap mod. Cap recharger, cap flux coil, cap power relay, power diagnostic systems. Also, Nosferatu.
You can say that some or all are either "crap" or "not optimal", but I can say the same of afterburners. Right now in this game, outside of niche cases, it's MWD or GTFO.
If nerfing cap boosters is coming up for discussion solely to make another poor choice more viable.
If you tweak cap boosters, you're likely to make a lot of ship balance fall apart like a collapsing Jenga tower.
I'm all for giving you the NOS as a cap option. Frigs use them to maintain tackle and hardeners a lot. But they never fuel lasers/hybrids or reps. They're just not for that. They're for keeping the lights on in the dark so to speak. BUT, the others you listed are wholesale NOT pvp modules. Saying that a cap flux coil is a cap option is like saying an overdrive injector is a prop. Afterburners are an amazing prop for pvp. Especially on smaller ships that know their enemy will commit, and on acceleration gates. Not exactly "niche". nerfing cap boosters is not coming up as an "option" to make another choice viable, its coming up as a pointed statement that NOTHING will ever compete with them until its utterly broken stat wise, or cap boosters are given a weakness. Of some kind. Even a small cooldown on cap boosters like 20 seconds could radically bring their power into line. Give neut ships a window of opportunity. Much like the ASB needs its window of opportunity for ships to start hitting armor and structure before the tank resumes. If batteries are to truely be an option, they need to provide a gargantuan amount of buffer to force neuts to chew through. If that needs to be coupled with a cap recharge time nerf to balance GJ/S then that sounds great. +100% cap-cap and +100% cap recharge, 25% neut resist would be a great option. BS's would love that.
Doubling your cap and then doubling your recharge time (ie making it worse) sounds like more of a balanced option tbh (plus the neut resist bonus obviously). Sort of like buffer tanking your cap instead of active tanking it (with a cap booster).
[EDIT] - Maybe would even have to triple the recharge time because of how recharge works in conjunction with total cap amount. Not too sure on the actual maths. |
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1078
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 00:59:22 -
[118] - Quote
Kalen Pavle wrote:How about we go one step further and completely change cap batteries to an active module?
We'll continue with it providing (passive) resistance to nos/neut. Then we add an active whereby the amount of capacitor the mod provides is directly injected to the capacitor but with 100% nos/neut resistance. Give it a reactivation delay of 20sec or something.
A small should apply an injection equal to 3/4 of an average capacitor pool for frigates, continuing up through the classes as appropriate.
I like where this is going.
If I may add a few changes, I would say give them fixed values for their ship size and a "recharge time" just like rechargable batteries we all use every minute of every hour of a day - the lithium ion-battery.
So it becomes an active mod that "injects" a fixed value of cap when you activate it and it takes 10 seconds to recharge for the frigate one, 15 seconds for the cruiser one and 20 seconds for the battleship one to recharge.
An average value for cap injection would be 200 cap for the frigate one, 800 for the cruiser one and 1600 for a battleship one and the cap injection would be one second, followed by the recharge timer and keeping a neut resistance of 40% for the frigate mod, 45% or a little bit higher for the cruiser one and 50-60% for the battleship one.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.17 12:11:15 -
[119] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
If batteries are to truely be an option, they need to provide a gargantuan amount of buffer to force neuts to chew through. If that needs to be coupled with a cap recharge time nerf to balance GJ/S then that sounds great. +100% cap-cap and +100% cap recharge, 25% neut resist would be a great option. BS's would love that.
I posted almost the same suggestion earlier in the thread. This is exactly what cap batteries need to become a competitive choice with cap boosters, or really to even fulfill their stated design goals effectively. Hell, a small cap booster can boost for more in one charge than the entire capacity of some frigates. For cruisers, it's often for two thirds of their capacity. |
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
561
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 06:30:37 -
[120] - Quote
I'm still wondering if the neut resistance bonus will be added to the fitting window, or if it will remain a hidden stat that will only be revealed by my calculator on my desk.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
448
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 08:38:49 -
[121] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:I'm still wondering if the neut resistance bonus will be added to the fitting window, or if it will remain a hidden stat that will only be revealed by my calculator on my desk. Well seeing as though Fozzie is intent on keeping these modules almost useless, I doubt they'll devote any dev time to updating the fitting window to show it, because nobody's going to see it anyway. But honestly it's one module to keep track of, I don't think you'd really need to calculate all that much?
Perhaps I'm being a little harsh. Someone posted an idea about fitting these to cap-chaining logi ships, and that's actually a great point. Beyond that, I've found and/or heard of like, four fits across hundreds of ships in EvE, where this module would be beneficial in even a fringe scenario (usually those fringe cases treat the cap battery as a super cap recharger - not for any neut resists which is the freaking point). Again, a cap battery doesn't do much for a ship not being neuted, and doesn't do near enough for a ship that is being neuted, and requires too much fitting to justify stacking multiples on the same hull to get any meaningful resistance.
We have the reverse problem with the damage control unit tiericide. I'll be honest, about a year ago I found that a few Amarr hulls actually benefit much more from traditional armor mods than a DCU. So the DCU shakeup is only a straight buff to the selected Amarr hulls that could get away with it. But Gallente have too much invested in hull to pass it up, Caldari vessels will still be happy to benefit from the shield resists so they'll dedicate a lowslot to it, and Minnmintar have too many lowslots to begin with, so fitting the DCU was already a must.
So batteries will still be a fail, DCU is still a must-have in most cases, so both get tiericided and nothing changes. A bunch of dev time wasted spinning their wheels.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
561
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 09:13:44 -
[122] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: Perhaps I'm being a little harsh. Someone posted an idea about fitting these to cap-chaining logi ships, and that's actually a great point. Beyond that, I've found and/or heard of like, four fits across hundreds of ships in EvE, where this module would be beneficial in even a fringe scenario (usually those fringe cases treat the cap battery as a super cap recharger - not for any neut resists which is the freaking point). Again, a cap battery doesn't do much for a ship not being neuted, and doesn't do near enough for a ship that is being neuted, and requires too much fitting to justify stacking multiples on the same hull to get any meaningful resistance.
Now, talking about the batteries that we have on live...the only time I used it was on a brand new alt to run some distro missions without running out of cap. In order for the batteries to be useful you basically had to be getting aux cap or you would be just neuted out anyways, vs just fitting a cap recharger for a fraction of the fitting.
The issue with hidden stats: is that if you don't see something change on the screen, they get devalued because you have to know in the back of your head it's doing something instead of seeing the change.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
448
|
Posted - 2016.02.18 09:29:59 -
[123] - Quote
Hopelesshobo wrote:The issue with hidden stats: is that if you don't see something change on the screen, they get devalued because you have to know in the back of your head it's doing something instead of seeing the change. An excellent point. Apparently there was confusion over how and how often the (current) batteries "reflected" some neut power. It surprised me to learn that it wasn't 100% certain to do so (was covered earlier in this thread).
There is certainly a lot they can do to improve the UI, and especially fitting. You are correct to ask for this stat (neut resistance) to be included in the fitting window; as I recall they have already started a project to overhaul the fitting window. So the time is right to get this introduced.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1093
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 05:59:55 -
[124] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Hopelesshobo wrote:The issue with hidden stats: is that if you don't see something change on the screen, they get devalued because you have to know in the back of your head it's doing something instead of seeing the change. An excellent point. Apparently there was confusion over how and how often the (current) batteries "reflected" some neut power. It surprised me to learn that it wasn't 100% certain to do so (was covered earlier in this thread). There is certainly a lot they can do to improve the UI, and especially fitting. You are correct to ask for this stat (neut resistance) to be included in the fitting window; as I recall they have already started a project to overhaul the fitting window. So the time is right to get this introduced.
What do you think of my idea if I may?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
2996
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 07:37:45 -
[125] - Quote
Boy, I'm glad I have some BPCs of Thurifer cap batteries.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
453
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 16:20:32 -
[126] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:I like where this is going.
If I may add a few changes, I would say give them fixed values for their ship size and a "recharge time" just like rechargable batteries we all use every minute of every hour of a day - the lithium ion-battery.
So it becomes an active mod that "injects" a fixed value of cap when you activate it and it takes 10 seconds to recharge for the frigate one, 15 seconds for the cruiser one and 20 seconds for the battleship one to recharge.
An average value for cap injection would be 200 cap for the frigate one, 800 for the cruiser one and 1600 for a battleship one and the cap injection would be one second, followed by the recharge timer and keeping a neut resistance of 40% for the frigate mod, 45% or a little bit higher for the cruiser one and 50-60% for the battleship one.
I'm assuming this is the idea you are referring to?
I like the concepts, but I'm worried about the recharge time being too quick. The one guy posted earlier in this thread about the cap battery only recharging when you have above a certain amount of capacitor. I like that because it helps limit the crossover with cap injection that we have with cap boosters. If we had those recharge times coupled with the capacitor threshold needed to recharge, I think we'd have a winner. I don't think it would be overpowered at that point (since it wouldn't recharge on it's own while under neut pressure, so Cap boosters would still have a role to play here), and it would finally be an interesting enough choice for me to consider mounting them - something which the current proposal from Fozzie doesn't do for me.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
453
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 16:49:01 -
[127] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:BUT. That would only make sense if cap boosters had 60 seconds of reload. ASB's are not as broken powerful as Cap boosters. If ASB's had a 10 second reload like cap boosters, then every ship in space would have a token asb on it, they would be horrifying. IF cap boosters got a 60 second reload like ASB's, or even a 30 second reload, the following batteries as buffer resist mods would see widespread competitive use.
Small Battery II .......... 30 Cpu ... 5 Pg ... adds a base of 250 Gj and provides 25% resist Medium Battery II ......... 45 Cpu ... 150 Pg ... adds a base of 1000 Gj and provides 25% resist Large Battery II .......... 60 Cpu ... 1500 Pg ... adds a base of 4000 Gj and provides 25% resist
None of these would be capable of being fit on downsize ships, and only niche cases of fitting them on upsize ships because of grid issues to squeeze out that last bit of cap along with a neut resist would happen. Until Cap boosters get a 30-45 second reload however, batteries will NEVER be able to compete with a Gj stream into a ships capacitor that can in some cases quadruple the Gj/s that ships get naturally.
I was reading through your posts again, and I have to say you've changed my mind about the cap boosters. The way you presented them in a juxtaposition with ancillary shield boosters makes a good point and I'm sorry for not acknowledging that sooner.
The numbers I've quoted above I think are debatable though. Looking at the Large battery for now, that's a lot of fitting resources. And while the 4k Gj is definitely welcome, I don't really think it would compete with cap boosters even if boosters were nerfed. What it boils down to, at least for me, is the resist. Neuts can get very powerful in a hurry, and I don't feel that 25% cuts it for a single resist mod, even with the extra buffer. So if I were to use these on a vessel, I'm likely going to put one appropriate-size, one small for the extra resist, and leave it at that. And if I'm flying a frigate, the resist isn't going to save anything anyway and I'd still rather a booster in that scenario.
But maybe you'd know better? I'm open to hearing more.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1094
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 18:12:24 -
[128] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:I'm assuming this is the idea you are referring to?
I like the concepts, but I'm worried about the recharge time being too quick. The one guy posted earlier in this thread about the cap battery only recharging when you have above a certain amount of capacitor. I like that because it helps limit the crossover with cap injection that we have with cap boosters. If we had those recharge times coupled with the capacitor threshold needed to recharge, I think we'd have a winner. I don't think it would be overpowered at that point (since it wouldn't recharge on it's own while under neut pressure, so Cap boosters would still have a role to play here), and it would finally be an interesting enough choice for me to consider mounting them - something which the current proposal from Fozzie doesn't do for me.
Yep exactly. The recharge values here are something I pulled of my rear view but also considering the reload times of cap boosters which can cripple you in a fight. They are of course only a first draft value so we would have something to look and brainstorm with.
If we look at the cruise size example I thought 15 seconds for 1000 capacitor because a neuta-geddon is already going to a terrible fight and even with navy 400 cap booster charges you end up with 19.4 seconds without any module on.
That may look like a lot of cap but is actually less than 50% of a cruisers base cap value and of course a neuta-geddon will nuke that away again. And of course I didn't want to make it too powerful so it wouldn't become mandatory by accident. I forgot to mention that you can only "inject" a full battery and not a "half-charged" one - though that would be interesting too.
The reason I chose below 50% base cap was so that the natural regeneration threshold would be oversaturated already so the capacitor regeneration would be slower after the "injection".
I admit that a capacitor cost sounds interesting but with us flying in the heavens and being exposed with solar radiation and other sources of energy it may complicate things too much. A ships capacitor regenerates by magic so why would a battery be different?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Advenat Bedala
Facehoof Out of Sight.
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 21:08:53 -
[129] - Quote
As veteran EFT-warrior I can say
Cap battery shine when you already invest many slots in cap regeneration. It's not so many ships which can do such. So. I really like cap battery rebalance in this iteration but... it seems done for cruser-size ships. For BS capa-bonus is low. For frigates/destroers fitting requerements are too big. Also frigates/destroers lack slots to make battery usable.
So my suggestion is to boost small-sized modules (both in fitting and capa-bonus) and add X-Large modules for BS |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
83
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 10:10:17 -
[130] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: The numbers I've quoted above I think are debatable though. Looking at the Large battery for now, that's a lot of fitting resources. And while the 4k Gj is definitely welcome, I don't really think it would compete with cap boosters even if boosters were nerfed. What it boils down to, at least for me, is the resist. Neuts can get very powerful in a hurry, and I don't feel that 25% cuts it for a single resist mod, even with the extra buffer. So if I were to use these on a vessel, I'm likely going to put one appropriate-size, one small for the extra resist, and leave it at that. And if I'm flying a frigate, the resist isn't going to save anything anyway and I'd still rather a booster in that scenario.
But maybe you'd know better? I'm open to hearing more.
I think you might be surprised what actual capacitor buffer would feel like on a ship. As it stands, there are precisely 0 ships that opperate on a buffer setup for cap. You can pile batteries PDS and Semiconductors onto a nestor, but its not really worth the slots to be honest. A lot of ships are fit solely buffer on shields or armor, and the raw time that gives you to DO something without needing to manage your own reps is quite popular.
If the batteries doubled or nearly doubled cap buffer AND added 25% resist, Cap "EHP" would increase significantly. lt wouldn't make you imune to a neut or two like a booster does, but it would give you potentially minutes of activity in an engagement. We might actually see Guardians/Scimi's using cap transmitters on someone outside the cap chain.
My point i guess is that nobody knows what flying cap buffer fit feels like, or if it would even work. I'd like to at least play with it as an idea on sisi for a while.
Also, don't forget that there is a skill that reduces CPU usage by 25% total, and the Pg usage is much less than a cap booster still. (on the medium and large)(small battery still has triple the acceptabe Pg usage numbers right now). |
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
455
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 12:54:24 -
[131] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:I think you might be surprised what actual capacitor buffer would feel like on a ship. As it stands, there are precisely 0 ships that opperate on a buffer setup for cap. You can pile batteries PDS and Semiconductors onto a nestor, but its not really worth the slots to be honest. That part of your post reminded me of a discussion on passive shield tanking over on the "Ships & Modules" forum a few months back. To be precise, people posted a bunch of numbers from fitting various ships both passive shield, and active shield. And the basic conclusion was "active shield tanking takes on average 2-4 less mods to pull off, gives higher EHP/s numbers, and those extra slots you're not using (for shield) can be used for extra damage, application, mobility, or accessory, drastically increasing the performance of the ship. Ergo, passive shield tanking is never worth it."
So, I'm seeing a lot of overlap between fail passive shield tanking, and fail passive cap tanking. Again, at least with the numbers Fozzie is presenting. Which brings me to this part...
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:If the batteries doubled or nearly doubled cap buffer AND added 25% resist, Cap "EHP" would increase significantly. lt wouldn't make you imune to a neut or two like a booster does, but it would give you potentially minutes of activity in an engagement
That seems much more reasonable, considering the fitting requirements. Yes, I saw what you said about the fitting skills and I had forgotten about that, but the cap batteries Fozzie is trying to give us still don't justify those fitting numbers. However, if he buffed the batteries to what you've suggested, I'd at least give them a try. I'd even try them extensively on SiSi. Of course, a powerful battery would HAVE to be paired with a cap booster nerf, which I've already said I've reconsidered and I'm now on board with.
The best part of your suggestion is that the huge cap buffer would act as a natural cap recharger - as well it should. For the fitting requirements presented, it should give people a decent boost in recharge when outside of neuts, and the rest takes care of itself.
But since the small/medium/large aren't hard-coded for use only on a sized vessel, you'll have to offer up a cap increase number appropriate for each size. What would you suggest?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
CaesarGREG
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 18:25:09 -
[132] - Quote
Table with NEW Capacitor batteries is very good!
Maybe ppl will start use batteries in pvp when they will get more capacitor and beter resistances.
Good change:) |
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 20:52:52 -
[133] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote: Ergo, passive shield tanking is never worth it."
But since the small/medium/large aren't hard-coded for use only on a sized vessel, you'll have to offer up a cap increase number appropriate for each size. What would you suggest?
Passive recharge is fail tanking for pvp. I agree. And for the most part, its because there are no stacking penalties on those modules, therefore, they don't have high enough stat benefits to be worth putting on in anything other than maxed out every slot setups. They're balanced around what you can squeeze out of max setups, not by what you get out of 2 or 3 slots before penalties cripple any additional modules.
What i was talking about was just plain old buffer. It takes you longer to burn through my 1600 plate vexor than it takes me to neut out and burn past your dual rep thorax. Buffer Vs. Active tank. Not passive recharge.
How do you then make an Active Vs. Buffer cap system? If ASB and Shield Extenders are to be considered "balanced", small batteries need to increase frig capacitor by about 150%. Mediums need to increase by about 100% and Battleships need to get about 66% of their cap again. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1261
|
Posted - 2016.02.23 21:00:01 -
[134] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote: Ergo, passive shield tanking is never worth it."
But since the small/medium/large aren't hard-coded for use only on a sized vessel, you'll have to offer up a cap increase number appropriate for each size. What would you suggest? Passive recharge is fail tanking for pvp. I agree. And for the most part, its because there are no stacking penalties on those modules, therefore, they don't have high enough stat benefits to be worth putting on in anything other than maxed out every slot setups. They're balanced around what you can squeeze out of max setups, not by what you get out of 2 or 3 slots before penalties cripple any additional modules. What i was talking about was just plain old buffer. It takes you longer to burn through my 1600 plate vexor than it takes me to neut out and burn past your dual rep thorax. Buffer Vs. Active tank. Not passive recharge. How do you then make an Active Vs. Buffer cap system? If ASB and Shield Extenders are to be considered "balanced", small batteries need to increase frig capacitor by about 150%. Mediums need to increase by about 100% and Battleships need to get about 66% of their cap again.
i.e. there still ****...
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 Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
52
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 02:55:01 -
[135] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Kasia en Tilavine wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote: Ergo, passive shield tanking is never worth it."
But since the small/medium/large aren't hard-coded for use only on a sized vessel, you'll have to offer up a cap increase number appropriate for each size. What would you suggest? Passive recharge is fail tanking for pvp. I agree. And for the most part, its because there are no stacking penalties on those modules, therefore, they don't have high enough stat benefits to be worth putting on in anything other than maxed out every slot setups. They're balanced around what you can squeeze out of max setups, not by what you get out of 2 or 3 slots before penalties cripple any additional modules. What i was talking about was just plain old buffer. It takes you longer to burn through my 1600 plate vexor than it takes me to neut out and burn past your dual rep thorax. Buffer Vs. Active tank. Not passive recharge. How do you then make an Active Vs. Buffer cap system? If ASB and Shield Extenders are to be considered "balanced", small batteries need to increase frig capacitor by about 150%. Mediums need to increase by about 100% and Battleships need to get about 66% of their cap again. i.e. there still ****...
Which is something that we've been trying to point out. If the devs are actually reading this thread it would be nice to see what their reasoning is behind the stats and what situations they envision batteries being used in are. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
459
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 04:35:45 -
[136] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Which is something that we've been trying to point out. If the devs are actually reading this thread it would be nice to see what their reasoning is behind the stats and what situations they envision batteries being used in are. I'm fairly certain they're reading the thread, because they responded to the point of the fitting requirements being too high, so they lowered the CPU. Which is kind of a joke, because the fitting requirements being too dang high (to paraphrase a meme) was probably only a third of the problem. The other two thirds of the problem, the much bigger part of the problem, is that the batteries they are presenting are still useless. I would freaking love it if they did come in here and spelled out how they envision these modules being used, because out of the two dozen modules they have, everyone has chimed in to say they're probably only ever going to use the small tech II for the resistance because none of these batteries come with enough buffer to justify the fitting cost.
And the devs still don't get it.
To use sales terms, they're trying to sell us a product we don't want because we have better alternatives and we have no use for what they're selling. And this reminds me of a real-world story I heard once.
So the story goes, one day a hardware company was selling a little device that a person could wear as a backpack, and through a hose, spray stuff on their lawn. They sold a few units. Everything was normal. Suddenly, sales of this one item spiked. When they were discussing with their customers why this was suddenly a hot item, they said they were removing the water tank, and just using the device to blow leaves around. The company had a great idea and re-made a new model of the device specifically to do that. And thus, the modern leaf blower was born!
So the story goes here, everyone is telling CCP they want a leaf blower. So CCP is introducing a yard sprayer with a larger water tank that is now completely unremovable and the device is heavier.
No thanks. This isn't what we're in the market for, we don't want your product, and your device is obsolete. We want the resistance, not so much the buffer, and certainly not at that cost. Go back to the drawing board and start again. They have been provided with dozens of great ideas from a lot of people in this thread, ranging from a slight re-tooling of the current stats and bonuses, to a complete overhaul of how the device is supposed to work. Each one has some merits and would make the device competitive. They should pick one and start working with it. Heck, if they wanted to be freaking awesome, they could take several radically different ideas from this thread and release several new module types to REALLY give us choices in how we fit ships and counter neuts.
Wouldn't that be awesome? Options! Fitting choices!
I know we're asking for Devs to come forward with what they think these will be used for, but I also repeatedly asked any of the players to put forth their ideas on how they'll use these batteries as presented. So far we have people saying they'll mount small tech II for the resistance on their logi chains, people saying they might mount them on capitals for the neut resistance, and people saying that they use the extra capacitor outside of combat to complete long-range jumps between gates while traveling. That is radically niche.
Where is the wide-use scenario for these things? Even semi-wide-use? How will these things ever been competitive? Where are they useful? To quote a piece of the famous scene from "A Few Good Men", as the judge says, "The court will wait for an answer."
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1099
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 06:56:31 -
[137] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:FT Cold wrote:Which is something that we've been trying to point out. If the devs are actually reading this thread it would be nice to see what their reasoning is behind the stats and what situations they envision batteries being used in are. ...what you said...
I don't do this often but I can only press the "agree" button once, so +1000000000000.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Rek Seven
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
2154
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 12:09:24 -
[138] - Quote
Fozzie doesn't like to engage with the player base in his feedback threads, so don't hold your breath for any meaningful discussions with the devs.
The wishlist is pretty much complete...
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2975
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 15:13:06 -
[139] - Quote
Would it be interesting or meaningful at all, if capacitor batteries affected the rates and values involved with overheating? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1261
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 15:15:07 -
[140] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Would it be interesting or meaningful at all, if capacitor batteries affected the rates and values involved with overheating?
how about adding an overheat function too them maybe increased e-war resistance
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
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2630
|
Posted - 2016.02.24 20:23:13 -
[141] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Fozzie doesn't like to engage with the player base in his feedback threads, so don't hold your breath for any meaningful discussions with the devs.
It is pointless to try and get CCP to reinvent the cap battery. Focus your feedback on what it is currently designed for (increased cap pool and neut resistance) and the fitting costs.
A big part of the problem is the fitting cost. The battery gives you a triple protection against neuts (better cap buffer, better cap regen and neut mirror soon to be resistance). That is technically not a bad combo at all but i'll be damned if it's worth all the PWG and CPU it needs to be fitted. |
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
2998
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 06:08:19 -
[142] - Quote
Realistically, the capacitor injectors are batteries, because you burn a charge to inject energy into the system.
The so-called batteries are in effect capacitors.
The way to use these, ideally speaking, and in an ideal world where you have midslots to burn, is on a solo Bhaalgorn. You jam on a capacitor booster, a large cap battery II. You can inject capacitor, get a larger capacitor pool, can suck capacitor and neut enemies, and you have a 28% resistance, which prevents you being capped out by enemy energy EWAR (in essence, it value-addds your own energy suckage 28% and increases your injected energy 28% versus inbound neuting).
That's the ideal scenario.
In reality, cap batteries outside of Bhaalgorns / Ashimmus (forget the Cruor; fittings still too high) would be restricted to other ships which cop drastic amounts of inbound neuts, such as capitals, Logistics cruisers, etc.
An illustration by comparison Similar to the circular discussions over on the Shield power Relay and Shield Recharger Tiercide thread, where the CCP devs were stymied by actual maths and equations, one of the things really holding back capacitor batteries (aside from their fitting costs) is the proliferation of other modules which affect the capacitor stat.
As pointed out in the SPR thread, you have, for shields; * Modules & rigs which increase resistance to damage * Modules & rigs which increase buffer * Modules & rigs which increase recharge rate * Modules which decrease buffer and increase recharge rate * Modules which actively inject using a charge * Modules which actively inject, using energy * PDU special snowflake
This is the same for energy systems (but not armour), save for the shield booster. The PDU is a special snowflake as it increases cap, shield, and PG.
Cap batteries = Invuls Cap batteries = Shield extenders Cap rechargers = Shield rechargers Cap flux coil = Shield Power Relay Cap booster = ASB Shield booster = N/A PDU special snowflake
Passive tanking The maths for capacitor passive tanking are somewhat different than shield buffer / passive tanking. As said in the SPR thread, there's very few ships which can truly passive tank: the Drake, the Nereus, the Sigil and the Rattlesnake (+/- Svipul +/- Jackdaw). Everything else is better off in PVP or PVE with either buffer, sig tanking or active tanking.
This is defined purely by the interplay between midslots (buffer, invuls) and lowslots (SPR's, DCU), and leaves the Shield Recharger II as useless in either PVE or PVP in ALL situations. The maths are there, proved repeatedly, and some ideas on where to go with Shield Rechargers, SPR's and PDU's.
Passive Capacitor Tanking aka Cap Stability When the armour RR and logistics cruiser changes were put about, I proposed a Guardian fit which would be cap stable solo using a capacitor battery. It's a viable fit, you robably want to fly it in pairs anyway, but it illustrated how much excess capacitor the Guardian has and how unbalanced that is.
For the purposes of this, it illustrates also that it is possible in some cases even pre the above proposed rebalance, that PVP appropriate passive capacitor can be achieved.
In PVE, passive capacitor tanking is known as being "cap stable" ie; the use of capacitor is balanced by the capacitor pool and natural regenration. This can be achieved by either increasing capacitor recharge rate (cap rechargers, CCC rigs), capacitor amount (Memcell rigs, Cap batteries) or mostly for armour ships, CPR's.
Similar to Shield Rechargers, Flux Coils are basically useless, as they dump the buffer and increase the rate, but that typically puts you in the can anyway, so no one ever uses Flux Coils.
Cap batteries in PVE can be used, like memcell rigs, to increase capacitor buffer to a point where adding cap rechargers will increase the recharge rate to the point where your capacitor use is balanced (guns or reppers it matters not). Whether you make this choice or not depends on slots, fitting and alternatives. For instance, CCC's are used in PVE because you aren't usually worried about resists to achieve a tank (you can fit rat-specific resists to max these out) and are patient enough to prioritise tank over gank (rat DPS is manageable), which means you may as well load up CCCs into the rigs versus eke out a hardwired resist bonus or a smidge more DPS. This isn't the same for PVP.
Capacitor Flux Coils Now, until now the Cap Battery has not explicitly had a resistance to energy damage, and was kinda like an invul field which only worked part of the time at random, by reflecting some damage. With a straight up resist to Nos/Neuts, the cap flux coil could be a viable module if its capacitor bonus (ie buffer) attribute was stripped out and the resist left alone for a module that burned * one midslot, or lowslot * 1 PG * 24-42 CPU.
If you look at a module like that, you would logically think "Booyah, heres capacitor warfare resistance module!" and you'd see them fit on all sorts of PVP ships.
This would strip a cap buffer option out of the game, but you could then keep this in the Cap Battery as long as; * It provided size-appropriate capacitor buffer enhancements that are meaningful and not percentage based eg; small provides 400 Capacitor (100$ of a frigate) medium prodves 1200 capacitor (75% of a Omen) large provides 3000 capacitor (50% of a geddon)
* as long as the PG and CPU costs were equivalent to the equivalent buffer modules for shield and/or armour. eg; Small Capacitor Battery would cost 25-35 PG and 24-32 CPU (equivalent to a MSE which is a frigate sized tanking mdule) Medium Cap Battery would cost 150-200 PG and 25-40 CPU (equivalent to an LSE or 800 plate) Large Cap Battery would cost 400-500 PG, 30-45 CPU (a 1600 plate or LSE)
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
2998
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 06:25:56 -
[143] - Quote
2/2
The logic behind these numbers is that you are not only assigning a module to increase the effectiveness of Cap Rechargers, CCCs and PDS's (all mdules which increase recharge rate), you are burning a slot, and trading off the fitting costs on increasing cap buffer versus fitting costs on other modules.
The effect of doubling a frigate's capacitor would be different than doubling a BS. Firstly frigates are mostly cap stable with MWDs on, and very few in PVE or PVP ever fit cap rechargers; at most a small cap booster on a couple of fits. The small cap booster will still, even if you double the cap pool, provide more cap in PVP. Secondly, the way passive tanking works is via synergy. One Cap Recharger II and a SCB II (doubling your capacitor) would mean, in effect, the Cap Recharger would be doubled in effectivness. 15% of 200% = 30% of original. This, for most frigates, would be a decent way to spend 2 midslots on a PVE frigate with 3 mids.
The reason that you would not double a Geddon's capacitor is precisely that, above. A LCB II providing 1250 capacitor for 480 PG and 60 CPU is pointless. 3,000 capacitor begins to be a reasonable amount, and allows actual PVP use of CCCs (ie; increase capacitor 50% a CCC's effectiveness increases from 15% to 22% of original). Without the resist bonus as well, this would restrict LCB's to PVE fits, or niche PVP.
But in PVE, you'd be able for instance to sacrifice one midslot for a snergistic increase on CCCs, meaning you'd need fewer other cap mods to become cap stable. For instance, you'd be fine potentially with Maelstroms with XL booster, 2 LCB's and CCCs.
Finally, removing the resist bonus removes the wrinkle where undersized cap batteries could be fitted just to get the resist bonus. Well, of course they will be! So thats why you repurpose the Flux Coil into an energy resist mod and keep it in the low slot position - you have to sacrifice DPS to gain neut/nos resistance and neut/nos resistance cannot be easily paired with capacitor buffer.
Conclusions As it stands, the difficulty balancing batteries is the confusion over what they are. I have provided a clear and purposeful option for introducing a purpose-made capacitor warfare resistance module, and beefing up cap batteries so that they become truly impactful for PVE, and possibly cheap enough to fit in some niche, well-thought out, PVP fits.
Imagine EVE where your choice is cap warfare resistance vs DPS (or in the case of Guardians, resists and buffer), and whether or not you want to fit a cap battery for PVE or actively inject.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
464
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 07:11:45 -
[144] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:All of the things Well presented, level-headed, thoughtful, and explained well. You sir, I should hire to be my agent or something.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1099
|
Posted - 2016.02.25 20:54:20 -
[145] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:All of the things Well presented, level-headed, thoughtful, and explained well. You sir, I should hire to be my agent or something. at least we gave it a shot.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
472
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 12:37:44 -
[146] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: at least we gave it a shot.
You gave some great imput and gave the Devs a nice, simple solution. I tried a more aggressive approach and that went over like a lead balloon. We all did our best to provide reasonable solutions to a problem the devs don't realize exists. In the end, all we can do is try. But if it falls on deaf ears, there's no counterplay for that.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1103
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 16:27:33 -
[147] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:elitatwo wrote: at least we gave it a shot. You gave some great imput and gave the Devs a nice, simple solution. I tried a more aggressive approach and that went over like a lead balloon. We all did our best to provide reasonable solutions to a problem the devs don't realize exists. In the end, all we can do is try. But if it falls on deaf ears, there's no counterplay for that.
Thank you! You and the others did too.
The only thing left to do if nerf the Kestrel
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
473
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 17:32:20 -
[148] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Thank you! You and the others did too. The only thing left to do if nerf the Kestrel Okay, I'll bite. What did the Kestrel ever do to anyone? o.O
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1105
|
Posted - 2016.02.26 18:53:21 -
[149] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Thank you! You and the others did too. The only thing left to do if nerf the Kestrel Okay, I'll bite. What did the Kestrel ever do to anyone? o.O
something to lighten the mood. Was in reference of mis-communication between us and CCP.
Us: Ishtar op
CCP: Okay, we know, so we give you the light missile launcher nerf. There you go, problem solved (a year later).
Us: ?????????????????????
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 10:23:52 -
[150] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: at least we gave it a shot.
It's probably because there are what... 5 of us in here trying? Not a lot of ground swell for these. No one cares about them right now. Therefore no one rallies for their improvement. : /
Just like the discussion on shield flux coils. |
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1108
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 10:54:32 -
[151] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:elitatwo wrote: at least we gave it a shot. It's probably because there are what... 5 of us in here trying? Not a lot of ground swell for these. No one cares about them right now. Therefore no one rallies for their improvement. : / Just like the discussion on shield flux coils.
I would, if they would be one of our ideas or a mix of them. In that case we would have choices. Now we have one choice and that is to refine them.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
478
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 13:36:01 -
[152] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Thank you! You and the others did too. The only thing left to do if nerf the Kestrel Okay, I'll bite. What did the Kestrel ever do to anyone? o.O something to lighten the mood. Was in reference of mis-communication between us and CCP. Us: Ishtar op CCP: Okay, we know, so we give you the light missile launcher nerf. There you go, problem solved (a year later). Us: ????????????????????? I recall something...were you the one who jokingly asked CCP to nerf mining drones to see what they'd do? And that's when they nerfed Skynet carriers?
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2294
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 14:53:29 -
[153] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:All of the things Well presented, level-headed, thoughtful, and explained well. You sir, I should hire to be my agent or something.
I am reminded of this quote from My Cousin Vinny, because that is how CCP will react:
Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Your Honor. Judge Chamberlain Haller: [firm tone] Overruled.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
479
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 15:05:07 -
[154] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote:Trinkets friend wrote:All of the things Well presented, level-headed, thoughtful, and explained well. You sir, I should hire to be my agent or something. I am reminded of this quote from My Cousin Vinny, because that is how CCP will react: Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection. Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Your Honor. Judge Chamberlain Haller: [firm tone] Overruled. Have that movie on DVD, love that scene. Awesome movie overall :)
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions The-Company
1111
|
Posted - 2016.02.27 18:38:09 -
[155] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Khan Wrenth wrote:elitatwo wrote:Thank you! You and the others did too. The only thing left to do if nerf the Kestrel Okay, I'll bite. What did the Kestrel ever do to anyone? o.O something to lighten the mood. Was in reference of mis-communication between us and CCP. Us: Ishtar op CCP: Okay, we know, so we give you the light missile launcher nerf. There you go, problem solved (a year later). Us: ????????????????????? I recall something...were you the one who jokingly asked CCP to nerf mining drones to see what they'd do? And that's when they nerfed Skynet carriers?
Yeah, I wanted to know if I could see a pattern emerging of us telling the gods that the world is broken and the heavenly response was:
FEAR OUR WRATH. (Did we do this right??)
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1621
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 13:50:36 -
[156] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:elitatwo wrote: at least we gave it a shot. It's probably because there are what... 5 of us in here trying? Not a lot of ground swell for these. No one cares about them right now. Therefore no one rallies for their improvement. : / Just like the discussion on shield flux coils.
Because for the most part what can be said is and unless you threaten some ones comfy game play like make it harder to kill a freighter your not going to get enough drive for people to want to repeat themselves
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Kasia en Tilavine
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
84
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 15:55:20 -
[157] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Because for the most part what can be said is and unless you threaten some ones comfy game play like make it harder to kill a freighter your not going to get enough drive for people to want to repeat themselves
The whinge in that thread is still beyond mind boggling. There would be almost 70 pages if CCP hadn't trimmed it 2 or 3 times. For what ammounts to CCP touching their precious 'gank profit margin' spread sheets. Meanwhile, tiericides come and go and several module groups will continue to languish in obscurity.
On a more relevant note... why did the PG for the small battery go up during this pass? It costs more to fit than i think any single frigate sized module... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1623
|
Posted - 2016.02.28 20:08:46 -
[158] - Quote
Kasia en Tilavine wrote:
On a more relevant note... why did the PG for the small battery go up during this pass? It costs more to fit than i think any single frigate sized module...
I'm hoping ccp is aware at least of the firing issue on all sizes and just haven't given out new numbers hopefully one they hit sisi we will see that an adjustment happened at that level of nothing else
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Mad Abbat
Talon Swarm
67
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 01:35:36 -
[159] - Quote
Who ever gonna look in threads like this on this forum for a feedback? - Nobody. You'd be much better to catch a EVE dev on a reddit, or any place other than this forum. |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
485
|
Posted - 2016.02.29 02:23:49 -
[160] - Quote
Mad Abbat wrote:Who ever gonna look in threads like this on this forum for a feedback? - Nobody. You'd be much better to catch a EVE dev on a reddit, or any place other than this forum. I hear ya there. But I also feel like it's kinda...stalkerish? To pursue someone through other forums (pun not intended) if you've already tried contacting them through one established method.
This is also something I keep hearing a lot. I don't know if it's true, but I hope that it isn't (that devs pay attention to other places like Reddit more than they pay attention to their own forums). Because if that's true, then it's absolute rubbish. Would any consumer group, in any other circumstance, tolerate giving feedback to a company through a dedicated customer service phone line, but the powers that be don't listen to the messages there and instead listen for customer complaints extreme enough to hit the 10 O'Clock news? It'd be outrageous.
I've never been to reddit, and I don't plan on ever going to reddit. These forums were specifically built for the people who play this game, and I don't know what another forum can offer that these forums cannot, other than imput from people who haven't actually played the game.
Other forums, and I suppose reddit too, could be valuable as marketing tools when cool things happen in EvE that you would want to announce to the rest of the world. Stuff like huge battles, massive corp theft, or other interesting game happenings. But it's not the place to get constructive feedback since I'm assuming there's no way to filter out people who don't play the game and know the limitations therein. Would you go to a Wal*Mart to solicit feedback on how a "Mom & Pop" store down the street should run their business? Of course not, it sounds ludicrous on its face, and so does the idea of gathering feedback through other channels.
TL;DR I hope that despite the reputation, devs pay attention to their forums and not reddit.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1263
|
Posted - 2016.03.04 19:33:07 -
[161] - Quote
so with the patch notes note .. we are stuck with these turd batteries
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 Cold
FUITA Dead Terrorists
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.05 02:01:06 -
[162] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:so with the patch notes note .. we are stuck with these turd batteries
Yep, was really hoping they'd take another look. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3024
|
Posted - 2016.03.05 05:50:32 -
[163] - Quote
Well, they aren't Turds, they are significantly improved from before...... But given how deep and underpowered they were before that's not difficult. It would be nice to see CCP have a concrete plan for if people still don't use them like 'If uptake is low we will slash Fitting by 10% steps every few months till we start seeing regular use' |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
493
|
Posted - 2016.03.05 06:37:04 -
[164] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Well, they aren't Turds, they are significantly improved from before...... But given how deep and underpowered they were before that's not difficult. It would be nice to see CCP have a concrete plan for if people still don't use them like 'If uptake is low we will slash Fitting by 10% steps every few months till we start seeing regular use' Well if you put a turd on a silver platter and light it on fire, you can call it flamb+¬, but it's still just a flaming turd.
The sad irony is that as a pilot who uses neuts extensively, I shouldn't want there to be more effective counters. CCP failing this module again should be a boon to me. I should be happy.
But I'm not.
Beyond how I play the game, beyond what I fly, what I train for, beyond anything I personally encounter or do...what brings me to this game and keeps me here, is the immense possibility this game presents. The potential here is staggering. They cultivated a unique playerbase and have a unique game at their disposal. I see what they have here and it inspires a deep passion within me. I love this game, I love what this game can be. And it drives me nuts to see people squander all that potential and having the game driven into a brick wall.
But I suppose we'll have to make do with turd flamb+¬.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Jhaelee de'Auvrie
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
24
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 03:18:07 -
[165] - Quote
Is it just me or do the new Faction mods seem to be distributed in an odd fashion. Fed Navy and RF Fleet seem to be getting a number of new items, some of which have nothing to do with their traditional benefits. Why are the Minmatar flavored groups getting faction cap batteries? Has that not always been an Amarr/Khanid/Blood Raider thing? It is also clear that the Amarr groups are now the only LP store without a Faction warp disruptor/scrambler. Is there a reason for that? |
Jean-Luc
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:01:00 -
[166] - Quote
I am looking forward to those changes, and cant wait for capital sized variants. Also DeD and officer meta would be nice. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1671
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 15:29:08 -
[167] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Mad Abbat wrote:Who ever gonna look in threads like this on this forum for a feedback? - Nobody. You'd be much better to catch a EVE dev on a reddit, or any place other than this forum. I hear ya there. But I also feel like it's kinda...stalkerish? To pursue someone through other forums (pun not intended) if you've already tried contacting them through one established method. This is also something I keep hearing a lot. I don't know if it's true, but I hope that it isn't (that devs pay attention to other places like Reddit more than they pay attention to their own forums). Because if that's true, then it's absolute rubbish. Would any consumer group, in any other circumstance, tolerate giving feedback to a company through a dedicated customer service phone line, but the powers that be don't listen to the messages there and instead listen for customer complaints extreme enough to hit the 10 O'Clock news? It'd be outrageous. I've never been to reddit, and I don't plan on ever going to reddit. These forums were specifically built for the people who play this game, and I don't know what another forum can offer that these forums cannot, other than imput from people who haven't actually played the game. Other forums, and I suppose reddit too, could be valuable as marketing tools when cool things happen in EvE that you would want to announce to the rest of the world. Stuff like huge battles, massive corp theft, or other interesting game happenings. But it's not the place to get constructive feedback since I'm assuming there's no way to filter out people who don't play the game and know the limitations therein. Would you go to a Wal*Mart to solicit feedback on how a "Mom & Pop" store down the street should run their business? Of course not, it sounds ludicrous on its face, and so does the idea of gathering feedback through other channels. TL;DR I hope that despite the reputation, devs pay attention to their forums and not reddit.
They do read their own forums but they give feedback and converse woth players much more on reddit
Citadel worm hole tax
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14001
|
Posted - 2016.03.07 21:50:36 -
[168] - Quote
Hey folks. Thank you very much to everyone who has posted feedback in this thread. I'm sorry that I haven't been replying as regularly as I'd like.
I am definitely interested in further investigating some of the suggestions brought up in this thread, including shifting Cap Flux Coils over to cap warfare resistance. We'll keep an eye on how the resistance values work out in practice on the live server, and that will hopefully give us a better idea of where else it can be useful.
Based on some more of the feedback we've been getting on these batteries, I've done one more pass buffing the stats. We've reduced fittings a bit and increased the cap benefit a fair bit. Newest stats are now updated in the OP.
We'll be watching very closely to see how these work out in practice, as we plan our next steps.
Thanks again folks!
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Gunrunner1775
Interstellar Engineering and Electronics INC
54
|
Posted - 2016.03.07 22:05:29 -
[169] - Quote
QUESTION: Will the userinterface ship fitting window be updated so as to show the resistances stats next to or near the affected systems (for this it would be cap warfare resistance, also this would apply to ecm resistance ect) or perhaps an entirely new drop down at the very bottom added in showing various new resistances that are being added |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14001
|
Posted - 2016.03.07 22:11:30 -
[170] - Quote
Gunrunner1775 wrote:QUESTION: Will the userinterface ship fitting window be updated so as to show the resistances stats next to or near the affected systems (for this it would be cap warfare resistance, also this would apply to ecm resistance ect) or perhaps an entirely new drop down at the very bottom added in showing various new resistances that are being added
That is something we would like to add (potentially alongside a fitting window redesign for ghost fitting), but it will not be in the initial release.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1692
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 01:24:52 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gunrunner1775 wrote:QUESTION: Will the userinterface ship fitting window be updated so as to show the resistances stats next to or near the affected systems (for this it would be cap warfare resistance, also this would apply to ecm resistance ect) or perhaps an entirely new drop down at the very bottom added in showing various new resistances that are being added That is something we would like to add (potentially alongside a fitting window redesign for ghost fitting), but it will not be in the initial release.
sooooo just another invisible stat
an already grossly under powered module will now have a stat players cant even see to know just how much its helping them
10/10 would fit again
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
504
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 02:32:43 -
[172] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. Thank you very much to everyone who has posted feedback in this thread. I'm sorry that I haven't been replying as regularly as I'd like.
I am definitely interested in further investigating some of the suggestions brought up in this thread, including shifting Cap Flux Coils over to cap warfare resistance. We'll keep an eye on how the resistance values work out in practice on the live server, and that will hopefully give us a better idea of where else it can be useful.
Based on some more of the feedback we've been getting on these batteries, I've done one more pass buffing the stats. We've reduced fittings a bit and increased the cap benefit a fair bit. Newest stats are now updated in the OP.
We'll be watching very closely to see how these work out in practice, as we plan our next steps.
Thanks again folks! Thank you so much for the update. I hope these modules find some use now, and if you do decide to switch those Flux coils over, I'll be eager to see how that plays out.
In the meantime, after these hit TQ, I'll see if I can squeeze some onto my ships.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Scotsman Howard
S0utherN Comfort Circle-Of-Two
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 13:01:45 -
[173] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Gunrunner1775 wrote:QUESTION: Will the userinterface ship fitting window be updated so as to show the resistances stats next to or near the affected systems (for this it would be cap warfare resistance, also this would apply to ecm resistance ect) or perhaps an entirely new drop down at the very bottom added in showing various new resistances that are being added That is something we would like to add (potentially alongside a fitting window redesign for ghost fitting), but it will not be in the initial release. sooooo just another invisible stat an already grossly under powered module will now have a stat players cant even see to know just how much its helping them 10/10 would fit again
To be fair, there are a ton of stats in the this game you can't easily see or find.
The changes to this mod at least make it clearer to both parties what is happening. Before there was a message that said something along the lines of the enemy pilot has a mod that is interferring/rebounding the affect back on you.
Now, it is a simplely a resistance which is much easier to understand and process. |
Krevnos
Back Door Burglars The Otherworld
79
|
Posted - 2016.03.08 19:51:18 -
[174] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. Thank you very much to everyone who has posted feedback in this thread. I'm sorry that I haven't been replying as regularly as I'd like.
I am definitely interested in further investigating some of the suggestions brought up in this thread, including shifting Cap Flux Coils over to cap warfare resistance. We'll keep an eye on how the resistance values work out in practice on the live server, and that will hopefully give us a better idea of where else it can be useful.
Based on some more of the feedback we've been getting on these batteries, I've done one more pass buffing the stats. We've reduced fittings a bit and increased the cap benefit a fair bit. Newest stats are now updated in the OP.
We'll be watching very closely to see how these work out in practice, as we plan our next steps.
Thanks again folks!
I have to say, Fozzie I am happy with how the modules are looking now. Easier to fit than cap boosters and possible to oversize (not easily) on certain setups will likely breathe some life into them. I will definitely be employing them in some of our corp's fits.
Thanks again for all your work on them!
|
H3llHound
Hogyoku Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 12:35:10 -
[175] - Quote
Fozzie, i want to ask again because my question wasnt answered...Will the Semiconductor Rig (eventually) get the same energy warface resistance? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14011
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 13:30:20 -
[176] - Quote
H3llHound wrote:Fozzie, i want to ask again because my question wasnt answered...Will the Semiconductor Rig (eventually) get the same energy warface resistance?
I won't rule anything out for the future, but we don't have any firm plans to go over those rigs right now.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Alex Harumichi
Icecream Audit Office
35
|
Posted - 2016.03.09 13:35:48 -
[177] - Quote
Well, at the least the new batteries are a *lot* better than the old ones. As in: I'm actually going to fit some of these on my ships. Not very many, granted, but some. There are some nice use cases.
So... improvement.
|
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
207
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 12:50:28 -
[178] - Quote
Among the ships that benefit the most are T3 cruisers. So, when? |
Khan Wrenth
Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation
518
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 13:06:24 -
[179] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Among the ships that benefit the most are T3 cruisers. So, when? Well historically T3 cruisers have always been able to oversize modules. But if you make a module so hard to fit that even the superships can barely work them, then the module is useless to everyone else who uses normal ships. If every module were balanced around T3 capabilities, nobody else would be able to use them.
Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
1102
|
Posted - 2016.03.10 15:50:42 -
[180] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:sooooo just another invisible stat
an already grossly under powered module will now have a stat players cant even see to know just how much its helping them
10/10 would fit again This is appropriate moment to say (bear with me) "Think about the newbies!"
On a side note: I tried to ask two times and was always getting mixed answers. So here's hoping that three times a charm:
How exactly do cap resistances work?
Some say it makes neuting you more expensive, some say you lose less cap. It doesn't help that some people refer to the stat as "neut/nos reflection". What's the truth?
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
|
FT Cold
FUITA Dead Terrorists
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.11 19:07:39 -
[181] - Quote
Well, they're better than they were, but I still don't really think that they're great for the designed purpose. I think that we might find them used of a few niche fits, especially oversized batteries on HACs, but they're still going to be of limited use. What we really needed was, as was suggested several times on this thread, was for the cap bonus to be on the order of the module's ship size class's base cap, similar to how armor plates work, and for there to be a cap regeneration penalty and larger power grid requirement to balance it.
As an example, a large cap battery could require 2000 PWG, give 8000 GJ, and would give the ship a 50% increase in cap recharge time. This would allow battleships to actually 'tank' their capacitors in a way that makes it very difficult to neut them out and makes batteries an attractive alternative to cap boosters, or gives new options with the combination of a cap booster and battery.
Small ships like frigates need to have enough capacitor buffer with a battery to withstand a cycle from a heavy neut to be effective. Current numbers are far to small to make them an attractive choice against boosters, which for frigates can completely refresh their cap in one cycle.
Anyhow, I'm glad you've chimed in a few times foz, I'll be interested to see what other uses people come up with for these. Hopefully they're more useful than I think they're going to be. |
Trinkets friend
Empty Vessels
3014
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 13:01:27 -
[182] - Quote
Frigates tank heavy neuts fine, because of the cycle time being so long. Sure, you might have a hairy time fiddling scram and prop and DCU (though, not anymore!) ccles when your cap gets alpha'ed but...actually, no, it's easy enough. You're there to get tackle, and maybe die. A heavy neut isn't going to prevent that, what with the recharge rate on a frigate.
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
MBizon Osis
State War Academy Caldari State
66
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 16:56:51 -
[183] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:H3llHound wrote:Fozzie, i want to ask again because my question wasnt answered...Will the Semiconductor Rig (eventually) get the same energy warface resistance? I won't rule anything out for the future, but we don't have any firm plans to go over those rigs right now.
Don't count on it H3llHound, apparently Icelandic has no word for "consistency". |
FT Cold
FUITA Dead Terrorists
53
|
Posted - 2016.03.13 23:54:25 -
[184] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Frigates tank heavy neuts fine, because of the cycle time being so long. Sure, you might have a hairy time fiddling scram and prop and DCU (though, not anymore!) ccles when your cap gets alpha'ed but...actually, no, it's easy enough. You're there to get tackle, and maybe die. A heavy neut isn't going to prevent that, what with the recharge rate on a frigate.
A heavy neut is one of the best weapons a battleship has vs a frigate because it can alpha it's cap. Knocking a frigate's capacitor to zero in one shot disables it's prop mod, AAR, tackle, and in some cases DPS and puts it's cap regen at it's minimum value. For a battleship, this potentially means escape if you're aligned, pulling range and blapping, or a quick kill vs AAR fits with drones.
|
Thuggish BluntBlowin
Total Insecurity Solyaris Chtonium
0
|
Posted - 2016.04.01 16:55:41 -
[185] - Quote
F*CK YOU EVE I'm gone for 2 weeks and you destroy EVERY PVE fit I fly as a Minmatar pilot ty soooooooo much every time I get in on a good fit a month later you f*ckin scrap it! good by vagabond low sec PVE .. JUST FORCE US TO NULL the only thing any of these updates are accomplishing is removing players who do ANYTHING SOLO PVP or PVE. |
Shalashaska Adam
Partial Safety
129
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 07:52:10 -
[186] - Quote
These new large batteries make for some quite impressive new pve omnitank fits that were not possible to mount before. |
Gary Webb
The Walking Deads Limited Expectations
8
|
Posted - 2016.04.03 23:52:51 -
[187] - Quote
@CCPFozzie Am i just ******** or are there no sleeper sites in WH on SISI? This is the best place I can think to test the capabilites in a real application but I cant for the life of me find any sites! |
Araceli Gabriela
Brutor Urban Development and Planning
21
|
Posted - 2016.04.06 14:30:59 -
[188] - Quote
Shalashaska Adam wrote:These new large batteries make for some quite impressive new pve omnitank fits that were not possible to mount before.
Yeah after tootling around in EFT I discovered a large cap battery actually increased my regen on a maraurder better than 2x rechargers did. That freed up a critical mid slot that suddenly made it the very best ship possible in isk/hr (for the particular pve I was doing).
So that's cool. However my question is does the "neut resistance" apply to sleepers? Would be very important to know before hitting bastion. I know it didn't used to but that's when it was called reflection? Sorry I'm sure this has been answered too.
PVE is my least favorite part of the game so ironically I spend a lot of time trying to make it go by as fast as possible. |
Troubled Basterd
Island Life Capitalist Bastards Chained Reactions
6
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 12:15:26 -
[189] - Quote
I was just wondering where/how the faction mods drop. Wat drops the faction cap batteries and is it a bleuprint or a full module?
Thanks
o/ |
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1255
|
Posted - 2016.06.15 11:56:03 -
[190] - Quote
After some time to fiddle with the batteries, I still think the neut resistance is set too weak and I would propose to increase the base resistance of the tech 1 mod to 25% and having the tech 2 mod at 30%.
The fitting for the capital ones are somewhat tight. CPU is okay but a tad less powergrid would go a long way.
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
|
Arix Petra
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2016.09.09 19:07:16 -
[191] - Quote
can you guys give t2 cap batteries increase neut defence against npc neuting? |
FT Cold
R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
86
|
Posted - 2016.09.15 19:28:17 -
[192] - Quote
Still no chance of an oversized cap batter for battleships? |
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
604
|
Posted - 2016.11.17 22:53:01 -
[193] - Quote
X-Large batteries for battleships pls
Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado.
Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |