For the best experience use full HD.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Industrial Indifference With One Exception

It seems like CCP is pretty much done with the discussion about industrial ship rebalancing. On the 16th, CCP Rise posted about it. He pointed to the "final implementation" numbers he posted in the second comment thread. I don't see that the proposed ship statistics originally posted really changed. The "tweaks" he mentioned making to them were about packaging volumes, better bonuses for the specialized bays, and not being able to convert them to ORE designed ships. More's the pity. And on top of all those changes, they are renaming the Iteron I through IV. Well, that's nice.

I still see it as a whole lot of unnecessary work, but as long as the devs all got paid for their time I'm not going to complain. It's no skin off my nose and won't change the way I haul. I suppose that really was my complaint all along. What is the point of having so many ships that do the same thing? However, the same could be said of PvP ships so I'll just HTFU now.

There is one thing I said would make me me "very angry" the last time I wrote of this so called rebalancing. That would be the elimination of the insta-warp Iteron V fit. It is a ship fit I use to get in and out of Anoikis so it is near and dear to my heart. A first glance at the proposed specs made me wonder if the fit would still be possible. I needed to run the numbers to find out. So I did.

Before I discuss my findings, you need a representative sample of the ship I am talking about. Here is the Iteron V I currently use. It is a fairly common fit.
[Iteron Mark V, Insta-Warp] 
[High Slots]
Improved Cloaking Device II 
[Mid Slots]
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Kinetic Deflection Amplifier II
EM Ward Amplifier II
Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II 
[Low Slots]
3x Expanded Cargohold II
2x Reactor Control Unit II 
[Rig Slots]
Medium Ancillary Current Router I
2x Medium Cargohold Optimization I 
[Statistics - Mabrick]
Effective HP: 4,909 (Eve: 4,051)
Tank Ability: 9.68 DPS
Damage Profile - <Omni-Damage> (EM: 25.00%, Ex: 25.00%, Ki: 25.00%, Th: 25.00%)
Shield Resists - EM: 60.73%, Ex: 65.00%, Ki: 76.44%, Th: 68.58%
Armor Resists - EM: 50.00%, Ex: 10.00%, Ki: 35.00%, Th: 35.00%
The critical stats for this fit are not actually listed in this export format. That is the power grid and CPU usage. An Iteron V currently has 85 MW power grid and 850 tf of CPU. The fit shown above, with my skills, produce a ship with 159.80 MW of power and 1098.36 tf of CPU. The fit needs 154.4 MW power and 274 tf of CPU - with my skills. 

The rebalanced Iteron V will still have 85 MW of base power so that will not change. However, the CPU will drop to 270 tf. Will that be enough to make the fit work? Well, for me it will be. I only need a gain of 4 tf. However, a lesser skilled pilot will have a harder time getting this to work. But, it will at least be possible.

That does not say it will work though. There is one other key requirement to make the insta-warp Iteron V work. The reason it works is because it can accelerate to over three quarters of it's maximum speed while under cloak using the 10MN MWD. Then, like popping the clutch on a dragster, when you drop the cloak the ship goes instantly to warp. So will the ship still be able to reach three quarters of it's maximum speed while under cloak?

The current Iteron V has a top speed of 110 m/sec. My skills give me a maximum speed in my Iteron V of 133.18 m/sec. Three quarters of that is 100 m/sec rounding up. With the cloak on, the 10MN MWD pushes the ship at 219.65 m/sec. And I can get to more than 100 m/sec in one pulse of the MWD. That's why it works.

What about after the rebalance? According to the blog post with the "final implementation" figures, the Iteron V will have a base maximum velocity of 105 m/sec. The mass of the Iteron V is also being increase by 750,000 or 6%. The lower maximum speed helps make the insta-warp threshold lower. But does it counter the increase in weight?  Will the ship still be able to get to at least 100 m/sec, the magic number, in a single pulse?

Probably, but I won't know for certain until I can test it on Singularity. I've tried to check, but the changes aren't there yet. I expect they may not be there more than a week before the patch. But for now, I'll pretend to be an optimist.

[***BIG EDIT***]

Who am I kidding. I have to know, so I went looking for a way to test the insta-warp fit against the new ship stats. I got lucky. Today Jester posted about the proposed HAC and medium long-range turret changes. At the bottom of the post was a link to a modified EFT data set by Namamai with the HAC changes included. If Namamai was going to go to the effort, would she include ALL the changes? YES, she would! The proposed Iteron V changes are in the data files. Namamai, I owe you some ISK.

Here is the rebalanced Iteron V insta-warp fit from EFT:
The numbers are slightly different since I used EveHQ Fitter for them and there has always been a slight variance. They are comparable nevertheless. As you can see, the fit still works. Even with the 6% increase in mass my MWD maximum speed under cloak is still 202 m/sec. The maximum warp time for this ship is 15 seconds. With an MWD cycle time of 10 seconds, I can still get to the magic 100 m/sec in one pulse. We still have our cheap, cloaky, gantlet running hauler. ISK pinching industrialists of New Eden rejoice!

Fly Careful

1 comment:

  1. This blog, more than any other truly gives us all an insight into the mind of a true industrial player in EvE. PvPers are totally as anal about fits for PvP... but they are, on the whole also a lot more vocal (textual?) about it than true carebears are about Indy fits.

    Indy guys, it seems, look for that one optimal for his use and for them, that's that. PvP has a much wider variety of workable fits due to the variable nature of PvP... where there can be no one optimal fit...

    I love these posts.

    ReplyDelete

Be civil, be responsible and most of all be kind. I will not tolerate poor form. There will be no James Hooks here. We are all better than that.