Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Negating my possiblity? I did mention or at least intended to make it clear that as things go it would need a negative aspect. Like taking more dmg depending what you looking at (ie reduced resistances) or in your case reduced total armor.

My bad sorry.

dont need passive armour regen you shjould feel lucky from your new shifting resistsancy mod witch shields dont have.

I think an organic wandering around the ship repairing things would be fine.. why don't you hire one?




..



..alternatively, there is already nanite repair paste to repair modules and the like, and another of other feasible fictional, and some realistic ideas to make this plausible.

The point is, it doesn't have to be fast; just a means of repairing arnor while out in the darker regions of space. There's no reason it couldn't function equally well on a shield tanked ships armor if it cam to that too. It might even make the armor buffer tank a little better.

Every tank type has it's weakness. Armor never regens and requires massive Cap to sustain reppers for it; there isn't really a passive armor fit aside from the buffer tank, and maybe there shouldn't be.

Shield Buffer passive regens over time and really only has the weakness that it's maybe a little too easy to melt and sometimes very hard to fill the resist holes. Also, you need to train a skill to 5 to keep damage from bleeding through to armor. Then you have to account for the need to choke out your mids to get a tank or sacrifice your tank to get a mids, or the fact that...


..actually, why are we talking about buffing armor again? The only other weakness in an armor tank is the challenge for space when looking at more armor or more dps; it is very easy to balance between the two and seldom requires a lot of thought. Shields are a frickin nightmare.

have an armor repper that has a higher cycle time that uses a lot of cap unless stuffed with nanite repair paste?


on another, mostly covered note, a DCU only has teh negatives of needing one GJ to activate (which it ticks once to a invul field's three activations), requires 15 cpu and 1 MW plus a low slot. Oh, and shouldn't forget that only one can be on a ship at the same time.

Yet, what do we get? 12.5% shield/ 15% armor/ 60% hull resists omni

My earlier post was sort of disorganized and maybe a bit violently opposed to Shield Tanking set ups, so I'll try again.

Shield Tanks:

~ Require Tactical Shield Manipulation (4x) skill at level 5 to prevent damage from bleeding through the shields. Plus side is training this allows use of other modules depending on the level trained.

~ Have multiple different mods and set-ups. This isn't really always a plus as it complicates things and each module type is intended to overcome a weakness in the shields ability to mitigate or absorb incoming damage.

~ Have passive Regen. to one degree or another, meaning they can recharge over time and between battles, or even in battles. Most ships unfortunately, don't have particularly good passive Regen. The ones that do still require additional modules to make them capable of sustaining Shield Recharge in the heat of battle.

~ Have gaping holes in their resistances on most standard set-ups, and with exception to Tech2 Minmatar ships, in general.

~ Require both Mid-slot and Low-Slot modules to make a truly effective Shield Tank of any variety. Unfortunately, this means that solo shield tanks are often impractical, if not entirely useless, depending on the ship and pilot skills.

~ For large Fleets, shield tanked set-ups can offer a very effective backbone for the fleet provided they are used right and do not focus on DPS.

~ Can be tanked in a variety of different methods; from Active Cap req. Tanks, to Passive Regen and Omni tanks, to Buffer Tanks, and even Charged active Tanks with recent advances in Shield modules. That actually gives them 4 different means of tanking; the last of which is the only one effective in both solo and fleet PvP on a variety of ships.

Armor Tanks:

~ Have Active and Buffer Tanks available.

~ Primarily Low-Slot Modules, with exception to some Capacitor Modules.

~ Limited variety in fitting, one-size-fits-all for both Active and Buffer fits individually. Uncomplicated.

~ Relatively good, and much more effective, base resistances.

~ Easy to fill in resistance holes for the most part, with a limited number of modules.

~ Require multiple Armor Reps to make a sustainable active tank. Pretty serious drawback here, even if it is the only real weakness of armor fits.

~ Works well on a variety of ships, and particularly well on those ships intended to rely on it.

~ Solo or Fleet PvP oriented, and capable of doing both equally well with the same fit if it's a good one. The same applies to PvE, in that a properly tanked armor fit should transition easily between the 3 types of combat without any real drawback.

~ No passive Regen. and no modules which provide it, despite the fact that Gallente vessels are organic in nature, (including their armor), and mechanics and ship equipment intended for the purpose should be capable of administering at least some repairs.

---

Personally, I'd say a ship should be able to repair at least 10-25% of damage it has sustained, or at least be able to repair up to 25% of it's armor and Structure without the need of another module.

So basically, that means a ship dropped into structure--with no armor left--that survives a battle should be able to regen. 25% of that armor over a period of time, and should it have sustained reasonable structural damage, the capability to repair some of that damage over time should be available too.

There should be some material consumption required for the Structure of course, and armor should require at least a steady supply of nanites or something. The only real question is, "What?" and, "How much?"

Should it be reasonable to expect a ship to repair that damage in battle? Probably not if it's in Structure. If it's just armor, then--slow as it might be--there should be a continuous repair occuring whether it has any effect or not with regard to the battle. Outside of battle, it should be reasonable to expect a ship to repair at least some damage over time.

Should we assume all ships have a supply of repair materials on board, and that those materials take up space in a cargo hold we have no access to and can't see? Probably.

So, yeah, I suppose it isn't a bad idea, and reasonable to expect that no modules are necessary, that it should be on all ships, (though some--like Gallente vessels--might have a more effective ability to repair damage), and even that it could repair damage to above 25% threshold and no more than up to 90% of full armor or structure.

Assume that anything over 90% is inaccessible, and below a certain level of structure repairs just cannot be made without some other means of managing those repairs, (i.e: onboard systems and technicians just don't cut it), and even that any repairs once the armor has dropped below 10% in battle just cannot be done.

Of course, that might all mean for a lot of coding, so what we really have to ask is, "is it practical?" and, "would it be worth it if it was?"

Personally, I think it would be worth it, and certainly--being all encompassing with regard to ship types and fits--not game breaking or likely to cause balance issues or even complicate things further.

Actually, it might be safe to assume that repairs couldn't be sustained in battle, (and probably much easier to code), while still being a good change and helpful in those particular circumstances where you really need it.

What ship doesn't manage repairs while it's limping home, or along its way, in modern science-fiction fantasy?

hmm.. PI products...

Might not be a bad idea to make Planetary Interaction capable of making the required neccessities to repair a ship, even entirely.

Then I suggest you take your troll self and go play that game. The eve universe will thank you for it.

So, similar to the ASB but uses nanite paste rather than cap charges?

Sounds awesome... and expensive.

Nvr said it would be easy or cheap.