Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lord Dragonmede
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 00:26:00 -
[1]
I have looked over the common suggestion listing and unless I missed it, I don't see anything like this mentioned.
I would like to see a wider selection of Afterburners and MWD's. In my opinion there is too large of a difference between the 1mn, 10mn, and 100mn drive sizes. Every time I go to mount modules on a ship hull I reflect upon the limited selection. If I think this way, then certainly there must also be others.
I would like to see 5mn, 25mn, 50mn, and 75mn MWD and AB's added to the list.
The MWD's would look something like this...
Microwarp Drives 1mn thrust: 1.50mN Cap: 4.5GJ/s PG: 15MW CPU: 25tF 5mn thrust: 7.50mN Cap: 9 GJ/s PG: 75MW CPU: 38tF 10mn thrust: 15.00mN Cap: 18 GJ/s PG: 150MW CPU: 50tF 25mn thrust: 37.50mN Cap: 32 GJ/s PG: 320MW CPU: 56tF 50mn thrust: 75.00mN Cap: 45 GJ/s PG: 640MW CPU: 64tF 75mn thrust: 112.50mN Cap: 58 GJ/s PG: 920MW CPU: 70tF 100mn thrust: 150.00mN Cap: 72 GJ/s PG:1250MW CPU: 75tF
The Afterburners can be calculated in similar fashion.
Think about having two MWD size choices and two AB size choices for each hull.
.
|
Loki Feiht
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 00:40:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Loki Feiht on 04/01/2011 00:40:47 +1 well, at least a 50mw ab/mwd
|
Corina Jarr
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 01:34:00 -
[3]
Well, considering we have ships in between frigate/cruiser and cruiser/battleship, it would be nice to have modules actually geared towards those ships.
|
Serge Bastana
Gallente GWA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 09:16:00 -
[4]
Not a bad idea really, I think CCP have gone for a more simplistic approach with regard to modules though to keep the database, and thus the market and our beloved hangars, less cluttered having 3 basic sizes of mods such as MWDs and such.
If they did this sort of implementation would we then have people asking for different sized guns for cruisers and BC's? Eventually we might end up with requests for every type of module to be differentiated in such fine detail. I like the idea but you can see why CCP have tried to keep it simpler.
------------------------------------------------ You either need a punch up the throat or a good shag.
Nobody round here is offering the second one therefore your choices are limited! |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 09:34:00 -
[5]
I love this with loving lots of love, as long as the mass increase scales between them as well. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Lord Dragonmede
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 10:44:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Serge Bastana
If they did this sort of implementation would we then have people asking for different sized guns for cruisers and BC's? Eventually we might end up with requests for every type of module to be differentiated in such fine detail. I like the idea but you can see why CCP have tried to keep it simpler.
The problem that I see in your concern is that there already is a range of artillery to choose from.
|
Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 10:56:00 -
[7]
Why not have 1 MWD and 1 AB module which just adapts to the ship it's slapped upon?
Slap a MWD on a frig and it'll be 1MN. slap it on a Cruiser, 10MN. Battlecruiser: 50MN. Each with their own PG/CPU reqs, ofcourse.
Add scripts to 'downgrade' or 'overload' them, with similar PG/CPU in/decreases. ---
Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser/Assembler: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ http://gemblog.nl/assembler/
Originally by: De'Veldrin Welcome to the ****ing sandbox
|
Lord Dragonmede
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 21:19:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gemberslaafje Why not have 1 MWD and 1 AB module which just adapts to the ship it's slapped upon?
Slap a MWD on a frig and it'll be 1MN. slap it on a Cruiser, 10MN. Battlecruiser: 50MN. Each with their own PG/CPU reqs, ofcourse.
Add scripts to 'downgrade' or 'overload' them, with similar PG/CPU in/decreases.
Well I would be happy even if you could mount 2-3 MWD's grouped together if you wish, with the appropriate modular stacking penalty.
|
Anhenka
Minmatar Bite me inc. Narwhals Ate My Duck
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 21:23:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
Originally by: Gemberslaafje Why not have 1 MWD and 1 AB module which just adapts to the ship it's slapped upon?
Slap a MWD on a frig and it'll be 1MN. slap it on a Cruiser, 10MN. Battlecruiser: 50MN. Each with their own PG/CPU reqs, ofcourse.
Add scripts to 'downgrade' or 'overload' them, with similar PG/CPU in/decreases.
Well I would be happy even if you could mount 2-3 MWD's grouped together if you wish, with the appropriate modular stacking penalty.
They used to have that before the great nano nerf. Problem is ships would fit multiple MWD's and a 500% speed increase for MWd's stacks in a hurry. They had BS's going faster than interceptors, pushing 15km/sec+ a sec for typhoons if I remember right. now imagine that on the current machariel....
|
Lord Dragonmede
|
Posted - 2011.01.04 23:03:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Anhenka
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
Originally by: Gemberslaafje Why not have 1 MWD and 1 AB module which just adapts to the ship it's slapped upon?
Slap a MWD on a frig and it'll be 1MN. slap it on a Cruiser, 10MN. Battlecruiser: 50MN. Each with their own PG/CPU reqs, ofcourse.
Add scripts to 'downgrade' or 'overload' them, with similar PG/CPU in/decreases.
Well I would be happy even if you could mount 2-3 MWD's grouped together if you wish, with the appropriate modular stacking penalty.
They used to have that before the great nano nerf. Problem is ships would fit multiple MWD's and a 500% speed increase for MWd's stacks in a hurry. They had BS's going faster than interceptors, pushing 15km/sec+ a sec for typhoons if I remember right. now imagine that on the current machariel....
Well, to fix that you make the 500% speed increase a constant instead of a variable, and use the thrust/weight ratio. Multiple MWD's would add to thrust AND to signature only.
|
|
Serge Bastana
Gallente GWA Corp
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 02:38:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lord Dragonmede
Originally by: Serge Bastana
If they did this sort of implementation would we then have people asking for different sized guns for cruisers and BC's? Eventually we might end up with requests for every type of module to be differentiated in such fine detail. I like the idea but you can see why CCP have tried to keep it simpler.
The problem that I see in your concern is that there already is a range of artillery to choose from.
Thing is, if you bring in different sized MWD for each size of ship, then they'll have to introduce meta/officer/faction/t2 versions as they have with the current ones. Having 3 types of MWD instead of 5 means a lot less items in the database and less to sort through in the market and in hangars/cans. Plus once you bring in 5 types of MWD, someone will want 5 types of AB, gun types, etc. This will lead to bloat in the database thus slowing things down quite a bit.
There are many different types of artillery, hybrids, lasers and pretty much every other type of module due to there being meta/officer/faction/t2 versions of everything. As I said, it's a fair enough idea, but would it add that much to the game in return for adding a whole load more variants to the database and market?
------------------------------------------------ You either need a punch up the throat or a good shag.
Nobody round here is offering the second one therefore your choices are limited! |
Draco Llasa
Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 04:01:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Draco Llasa on 05/01/2011 04:02:03
Originally by: Gemberslaafje Why not have 1 MWD and 1 AB module which just adapts to the ship it's slapped upon?
Slap a MWD on a frig and it'll be 1MN. slap it on a Cruiser, 10MN. Battlecruiser: 50MN. Each with their own PG/CPU reqs, ofcourse.
Add scripts to 'downgrade' or 'overload' them, with similar PG/CPU in/decreases.
Cause then you have the issue we had with rigs.. how much should this MWD cost.. 500K 5 mil? 20 mil? should it be the same price to put a MWD/AB on a frig as a BS or a titan for that matter? Not saying i support more sized, but i def dont think we should have 1 size fits all. altho.. i am intrigued by the idea of scripting them .. just sayin
|
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 06:20:00 -
[13]
Would have problems along the lines which killed the AF AB boost on sisi during pre dominion testing. IIRC correctly, little tweak there, little tweak there and you had 10mn jaguars running around. 5mn on AFs would apporach that problem again most likely. You'd also have inties and dramiels going warp speed out of warp lol.
also if you use iclone....5mn and 25mn are actually in the datadumps the code monkey who writes that uses. CCP has them coded already, why not implemented your guess is as good as mine. According to iclone the 25mn one is for industrial use. 5mn is for frigate class. I like your 25mn better than ccp's....they have 500 tF for cpu
|
Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 08:22:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Gemberslaafje on 05/01/2011 08:23:04
Originally by: Draco Llasa Edited by: Draco Llasa on 05/01/2011 04:02:03
Originally by: Gemberslaafje Why not have 1 MWD and 1 AB module which just adapts to the ship it's slapped upon?
Slap a MWD on a frig and it'll be 1MN. slap it on a Cruiser, 10MN. Battlecruiser: 50MN. Each with their own PG/CPU reqs, ofcourse.
Add scripts to 'downgrade' or 'overload' them, with similar PG/CPU in/decreases.
Cause then you have the issue we had with rigs.. how much should this MWD cost.. 500K 5 mil? 20 mil? should it be the same price to put a MWD/AB on a frig as a BS or a titan for that matter? Not saying i support more sized, but i def dont think we should have 1 size fits all. altho.. i am intrigued by the idea of scripting them .. just sayin
I see what you're saying... let's see what I can come up with to refine it.
Basic modules: MicroWarpDrive I: Cap: 45; PG: 15; CPU:25; MicroWarpDrive II: Cap: 50; PG: 17; CPU:30; MWD Meta 1: Cap: 45; PG: 15; CPU:25; MWD Meta 2: Cap: 45; PG: 15; CPU:23; Thrust: 1,500,000;
Nozzle Sizes: 1 MN: Thrust: 100%; Cap: 100%; PG: 100%; CPU:100% 10 MN: Thrust: 1000%; Cap: 400%; PG: 1000%; CPU:200% 100 MN: Thrust: 10000%; Cap: 1600%; PG: 8333%; CPU:300%
OverDrive Scripts: 25%: Thrust: 250%; Cap: 200%; PG: 250%; CPU:125% 50%: Thrust: 500%; Cap: 300%; PG: 500%; CPU:150%
---
Creator of the Eve Character Appraiser/Assembler: http://gemblog.nl/skill/ http://gemblog.nl/assembler/
Originally by: De'Veldrin Welcome to the ****ing sandbox
|
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 11:21:00 -
[15]
No to the adapting thingy, I like to run oversized AB's on my ships sometimes ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 11:38:00 -
[16]
...we're getting finer grades in skill-implants (1,2,3,4,5,6 percent instead of just 1,3,5) soon - just check Sisi.
If you want an oversized AB on your smaller ship, work that into the fitting/modification miracle, so that the outcome is the same, but that there also are power levels for destroyers/battlecruisers. support Public Idea Tracker | 24hr PLEX |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 11:55:00 -
[17]
A counter proposal:
keep the 1/10/100 MN (script or charge to increase pg seems a bit hard since mods are not switched on when fitting), but do the following.
You can script for speed, or less speed with a lesser mass penalty
Sampled with 1MN
Activation cost: 20 Activation duration: 10 seconds mass addition: 500k thrust: 1.5 mil
Scripted for speed Activation cost: 30 Activation duration: 10 seconds mass addition: 750k thrust: 2.0 mil
Scripted for more agility Scripted for speed Activation cost: 30 Activation duration: 10 seconds mass addition: 250k thrust: 1.0 mil
This would either give you better speed at increased agility loss, or better agility with a lesser speed boost, but you always pay more cap. ------------------------------------- I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |