open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Afterburner vs. MWD
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Judicator
Gallente
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2004.10.20 12:35:00 - [1]
 

As I was sitting at my desk reading for tomorrows lectures an idea dawned on me.

What if a 1MN, and higher ofc, AB gave you the same topspeed as a 1MN MWD, and higher ofc, but took a lot longer to achieve that speed?

I think you would have to couple this with removing the ability for ships to mount AB/MWD of a higher class, such as 10MN AB on a frig/inty. If I flew an Interceptor I would definatly take the MWD over AB, because despite reaching the same speed over time, the crucial thing in catching a prey is to be able to get to it fast.

I think the MWD shoud probably still hurt your cap/shield and signature radius.

This would IMO make afterburners more usefull.

If I use a MWD on my MoA when hunting rats, for instance, it hurts my cap and my shield. When fighting rats instant high speed is not a crucial as beeing able to reach high speed over time and sustaion this while still beeing able to have cap and shield for instance and fire the guns.

Small NPC assult/inty ships would still be able to catch up since the speed of the AB should never go beyond what a MWD of the same class can give you. Maybe the AB should only be able to reach 2/3 of the MWD speedwise.

So, downright crazy or with some merit?

Cruz
Out of Order
Posted - 2004.10.20 12:40:00 - [2]
 

downright crazy Very Happy

The AB provides no Signature Radius penalty while the MWD does. That Sig penalty is the main reason why people sacrifice so much just to fit a 10mn AB instead of a 1mn MWD.

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.10.20 12:43:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Grim Vandal on 20/10/2004 12:46:52
I like it.

however this is exactly what an oversized AB is doing right now.

so about 1/2 the speed boost of a mwd would be enough for a normal sized AB...

something along these lines will definately come soon™.

dont forget that we need a role for assault ships... and exaclty a oversized AB using cruiser is taking aways this role.



Seraph Demon
Minmatar
Posted - 2004.10.20 13:34:00 - [4]
 

If I recall correctly, I saw a screenshot of the Shiva market in which there was a module called a Cruise Control (it was sized, ie 1MN)

It gave a 70% increase to speed in exchange for completely depleting the user's shields.

While I'm glad that we'll finally have a good speed-up AB, I think that killing shields is just a trashy way to do it.

Can anyone confirm it?

My humble desire is that instead of a sig-rad nerf, an active MWD prevents restoration devices from being activated (shield/cap boosters, armor/hull reps), that ABs give an 80-100% speed bonus, and that oversized modules cannot be fitted.

Arvalen Eno
Caldari
Posted - 2004.10.20 13:42:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Arvalen Eno on 20/10/2004 13:45:27

Originally by: Seraph Demon
While I'm glad that we'll finally have a good speed-up AB, I think that killing shields is just a trashy way to do it.


Just another way to ensure everyone will fly around faster than Caldari... and/or survive longer doing so.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2004.10.20 13:52:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Seraph Demon
It gave a 70% increase to speed in exchange for completely depleting the user's shields.

While I'm glad that we'll finally have a good speed-up AB, I think that killing shields is just a trashy way to do it.

Can anyone confirm it?



I can confirm that this module exist, but good speed AB is not the term I'd use to describe it.
look at what you have to do to get only a 70% speed boost:
100 CPU (how many frig-sized ships can afford to throw 100 CPU in one module withtout being gimped?
20 Grid (a lot for a frig. not a gimping factor, but still more than a MWD)
90% of your shield.

Right now, with those stats, I can't even imagine how they would be usefull on ANY ship.

Quote:
that ABs give an 80-100% speed bonus, and that oversized modules cannot be fitted.


I think it should depend of the ship's class. A 35% speed bonus is almost useless in a BS, but a 100% bonus would be too good for a frig (do you fancy unhittable dual-1MN AB frigs and ceptors?).
I think the bonuses should be somewhere around theses values:
1MN AB: 50%
10MN AB: 70%
100MN AB: 90%

Ithildin
Gallente
The Corporation
Cruel Intentions
Posted - 2004.10.20 14:14:00 - [7]
 

Hope they'll make the Cruise Control faster, but remove ship agility/turn speed.

Toran Mehtar
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2004.10.20 14:19:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Toran Mehtar on 20/10/2004 14:22:43
The initial idea is pretty crazy, but I agree that abs need a look at. The way I see it is that they should be good enough in their own right that using one is not useless, but not so good that using two would make mwds all but redundant.

2 1mn abs has similar fitting and usage to 1 1mn mwd, the cost of an extra slot would in many cases be countered by less need for cap improving modules (getting that 25% cap back is better than any recharger), so to be able to use 2 abs to get near to mwd speeds, and without the sig radius boost, would only break the balance again.

A base boost of 50-60% (60-70% for tech II etc.) would make a single ab useful, and more than one very good, but not able to match mwd for pure speed. This would give a genuine alternative that doesn't imbalance gameplay. A dual ab user may be less vulnerable to turrets, but he will be more vulnerable to missiles.

This is of course dependant on stacking nerfs not being applied. Making ab and mwd bonuses add rather than multiply (500% + 500% not 500% x 500%) would make balancing a lot easier.

Shimatu
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
Dusk and Dawn
Posted - 2004.10.20 14:26:00 - [9]
 

i really hope they dont keep that cruise control thingy in game, at least in current state. its just one more disadvantage that shield tankers will have. well, unless theres one that does the same thing at the cost of 90% armour ('engine upgrade' perhaps.). at least then shield tankers will just have the problem that shield tanking as a whole is nowhere near as good as armour :P

Coug
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2004.10.20 15:05:00 - [10]
 

The thing people always overlook in the 1MN MWD vs 10MN ABS debate is that the pilot who has fit a 10MN ABS has used a vast majority, if not all, of his low slots on pure pg increasing modules. The pilots who use a 1MN MWD, have not.

Therefore the pilot using the 1MN MWD has more utility and thus, a better ship setup.

Judicator
Gallente
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2004.10.20 15:11:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Coug
The thing people always overlook in the 1MN MWD vs 10MN ABS debate is that the pilot who has fit a 10MN ABS has used a vast majority, if not all, of his low slots on pure pg increasing modules. The pilots who use a 1MN MWD, have not.

Therefore the pilot using the 1MN MWD has more utility and thus, a better ship setup.


That is simply not true. The Crow can use a 10MN AB, hell you can even mount a tech 2 version, without sacrificing it's utility usage. I think the same holds true for the Crusader and possibly the Malediction, but since I have flown neiter I cannot be sure.


Simon Greed
Minmatar
Omniscient Order
Posted - 2004.10.20 15:20:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Judicator
What if a 1MN, and higher ofc, AB gave you the same topspeed as a 1MN MWD, and higher ofc, but took a lot longer to achieve that speed?


That will have people simply orbiting a can/gate/station till topspeed is achieved, and when enemy warps in they have MWD-speed w/o penalty

ABs need an overlook though.

Seto Mazzarotto
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2004.10.20 15:38:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Seto Mazzarotto on 20/10/2004 15:42:24
I don't think amping up the AB to 150-200% would really unbalance things. So you'll have to sacrifice an additional med slot to get it to a level near the uber unhittable-ness of interceptors now, that extra medium slot will seriously hamper its tackling abilities.

And it'll give Caldari ship owners a chance to be evasive without completely decimating their defenses.

Shimatu
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
Dusk and Dawn
Posted - 2004.10.20 15:56:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Judicator
Originally by: Coug
The thing people always overlook in the 1MN MWD vs 10MN ABS debate is that the pilot who has fit a 10MN ABS has used a vast majority, if not all, of his low slots on pure pg increasing modules. The pilots who use a 1MN MWD, have not.

Therefore the pilot using the 1MN MWD has more utility and thus, a better ship setup.


That is simply not true. The Crow can use a 10MN AB, hell you can even mount a tech 2 version, without sacrificing it's utility usage. I think the same holds true for the Crusader and possibly the Malediction, but since I have flown neiter I cannot be sure.




yes, you CAN do that. but its not without sacrifices.
like... if your using a T2AB: you have to use rockets, youre low slots need to all be powergrid related, you wont be able to sustain a webbing or scrambling for cap reasons.
if you were setup like this and came up against a crow with traditional setup (ie. MWD, decent stuff in lows, and standard launchers), youll be torn apart. he's got speed so can stay at range, or can fly in closer web you and slam you with about 10 missiles at once (by having them flying before he webs you).
its a tradeoff, and thats how it should be.

Grim Vandal
Burn Proof
Posted - 2004.10.20 21:17:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword
Originally by: Seraph Demon
It gave a 70% increase to speed in exchange for completely depleting the user's shields.

While I'm glad that we'll finally have a good speed-up AB, I think that killing shields is just a trashy way to do it.

Can anyone confirm it?



I can confirm that this module exist, but good speed AB is not the term I'd use to describe it.
look at what you have to do to get only a 70% speed boost:
100 CPU (how many frig-sized ships can afford to throw 100 CPU in one module withtout being gimped?
20 Grid (a lot for a frig. not a gimping factor, but still more than a MWD)
90% of your shield.

Right now, with those stats, I can't even imagine how they would be usefull on ANY ship.

Quote:
that ABs give an 80-100% speed bonus, and that oversized modules cannot be fitted.


I think it should depend of the ship's class. A 35% speed bonus is almost useless in a BS, but a 100% bonus would be too good for a frig (do you fancy unhittable dual-1MN AB frigs and ceptors?).
I think the bonuses should be somewhere around theses values:
1MN AB: 50%
10MN AB: 70%
100MN AB: 90%



sooo true...

however imo +100% speed boost would work for each AB if they get a stacking penalty....

so lets say 3 "normal sized" AB's give you about the same boost as currently one oversized AB while on the other hand...
... one "normal sized" AB will give you about 100% boost which is more than doubled if you comapare it to a current AB.

as you already mentioned its very important that a frig or cruiser could NOT gain the same speed with 2 "normal sized" AB's as currently with ONE oversized AB. but again a +50% boost would NOT be enough for single AB! therefor +100% but with a stacking penalty is my vote.


Pandora Panda
Caldari
Posted - 2004.10.20 21:48:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Shimatu
yes, you CAN do that. but its not without sacrifices.
like... if your using a T2AB: you have to use rockets, youre low slots need to all be powergrid related, you wont be able to sustain a webbing or scrambling for cap reasons.
if you were setup like this and came up against a crow with traditional setup (ie. MWD, decent stuff in lows, and standard launchers), youll be torn apart. he's got speed so can stay at range, or can fly in closer web you and slam you with about 10 missiles at once (by having them flying before he webs you).
its a tradeoff, and thats how it should be.



Really? I can fit a tech2 AB, standard launchers, scrambler, webber, and have the cap to run everything indefinately. Yeah, its slower then a MWD, thats just about the only thing wrong with it.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only