These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Binary Armor Hardeners
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Throktar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#1 - 2014-03-10 05:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Throktar
I would like to see armor hardeners that have dual resists built in. They could be faction or pirate based, and look something like this.


Amarr Navy Binary Armor Hardener II

45 CPU usage

Activation cost 90 GJ

EM resist -55%
Therm resist -55%

The resists and everything else would be the same as T2 items.

I feel that increased cpu and a 50% increase in cap use would offset the power of combining two resists into one slot. You could make all the combinations of these hardeners in armor, which would be quite interesting.


Tell me what you think? Yes, I did search for this already.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#2 - 2014-03-10 05:20:59 UTC
Yes, lets give armor capitals even more EHP...

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#3 - 2014-03-10 05:30:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Throktar wrote:
I would like to see armor hardeners that have dual resists built in. They could be faction or pirate based, and look something like this.

EM resist -55%
Therm resist -55%

The resists and everything else would be the same as T2 items.

I feel that increased cpu and a 50% increase in cap use would offset the power of combining two resists into one slot. You could make all the combinations of these hardeners in armor, which would be quite interesting.

Depends on if you think capitals with 96+% resists on all categories are a problem.

TLDR: Oh Cthulu no, this is so incredibly overpowered on caps and supercaps it would be insane. Literally packing double the number of hardeners on.

Complete upset on the tenuous balance between armor and shield, cats and dogs living together, end of the world, affordable girl scout cookies, 100 million EHP aeons doing donuts while taunting shield supercaps.

On the plus side.. It's original. God job for searching first, something so many people fail to do. Seeing the same thread ideas posted for the third time in three days and 100th time in the past year gets old in a hurry.
Throktar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#4 - 2014-03-10 06:02:36 UTC
As a non-capitol pilot, I will fully admit to not putting them in my equation. If they were non-capitol only, what would you think?
culo duro
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2014-03-10 06:09:49 UTC
too strong regular T2 ones have -55%
You're suggesting something that's twice as powerful, if anything -30% -30% or -35% -35% would be better, but that would leave it close to EANM.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.com 
Anhenka
The New Federation
Sigma Grindset
#6 - 2014-03-10 06:14:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Throktar wrote:
As a non-capitol pilot, I will fully admit to not putting them in my equation. If they were non-capitol only, what would you think?

Naw, as long as 1 PG no CPU resistance plating mods exist, the standard would be to double up two hardeners into one slot with this mod then add a (non energized) adaptive nano plating in the now free slow, which only costs 1 PG and no CPU. Every fit that currently uses two t2 hardeners would be massively improved.

Or we could see a most ridiculous new meta: Nanoarmor.

Really. Take a previous complete armor fit, shove the hardeners together into half the slots, take those slots and nano that thing.

Gotta go fast, real fast! Fly like the wind Armor Astarte!

I think I'm having far too much fun in this thread. That or sleep deprivation.
Kenrailae
Scrapyard Artificer's
#7 - 2014-03-10 06:44:56 UTC
I would like to hear how they would be reasoned to be non-capital? My opinion is that anything that imposes an arbitrary limit is bad, so this would need to be reasoned out.


From a 'OMG my ship would be amazing' stand point, I love this idea. From a balance stand point.... Gotta agree with the rest the thread, it would be OP and out of balance, even if the same was done with shield. Ships would just be way too tanky, or same tanky with way more damage/ewar. Even at a modest medium of 30/35% resists, you just gain so many slots...


That being said, an Imp navy EANM, is 22.5 at base, ~26 with comp skills at 4. If these were set at @27.5%-30%, and could be reasoned as to be balanced with Capitals as well... you might have a good starting point for an Idea. Fitting 1 of each of these to get all 4 resists wouldn't be too much more than fitting two EANM's.


Definitely worth continuing discussing.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Seliah
Red Cloud Vigil
#8 - 2014-03-10 07:57:04 UTC
I feel like there are already enough resistance modules available. It's already possible to have balanced aswell as focused tanks (in terms of resists) on pretty much any ship, with a few lowslots and rig slots aswell. Adding such modules would just make it even easier to tank your ships, making ships either a lot more tanky, or free up low slots for other stuff. Right now I just don't see a case where such modules would solve an actual tanking problem other than "I want to use less slots to have a better tank".
Kenrailae
Scrapyard Artificer's
#9 - 2014-03-10 08:42:17 UTC
A scenario that comes to mind is assault frigates, using armor for discussion as that was the OP's proposal: With only 4 lows tops on most of them, they usually have a hole somewhere in their tank. Having the option to use one of these(EM/Therm), an explosive hardener, and dual reps on an ishkur for example would give a slightly better tank for more cap, which could be overheated as opposed to an EANM which couldn't. Makes them more vulnerable to neuts if they're trading this binary hardener for an EANM, but more survivable, while they have cap. Also gives them a Full OH option, which has it's own pro's and cons.


On cap's, an Imp Navy EANM would still prolly be a better option, or could be balanced for an Imp Navy EANM to be about the same minus cap usage, which isn't as big a concern on carriers, true. Make these only slightly better than EANM's so they can plug specific holes in a ship's resist profile for a bit less fitting. So balance CPU use down to 25 or 30 instead of the 36 T2 EANM's are at. I could see this being a thing. Would still like to hear other thoughts on capital balance if these were set at 27/28% ish resist rather than the 55 of their dedicated counter parts.


Basically using 2 of these and getting an A type EANM's resist profile for a bit less CPU but a fair bit of cap consumption.

What ya think OP?


The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Throktar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#10 - 2014-03-11 06:54:51 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
A scenario that comes to mind is assault frigates, using armor for discussion as that was the OP's proposal: With only 4 lows tops on most of them, they usually have a hole somewhere in their tank. Having the option to use one of these(EM/Therm), an explosive hardener, and dual reps on an ishkur for example would give a slightly better tank for more cap, which could be overheated as opposed to an EANM which couldn't. Makes them more vulnerable to neuts if they're trading this binary hardener for an EANM, but more survivable, while they have cap. Also gives them a Full OH option, which has it's own pro's and cons.


On cap's, an Imp Navy EANM would still prolly be a better option, or could be balanced for an Imp Navy EANM to be about the same minus cap usage, which isn't as big a concern on carriers, true. Make these only slightly better than EANM's so they can plug specific holes in a ship's resist profile for a bit less fitting. So balance CPU use down to 25 or 30 instead of the 36 T2 EANM's are at. I could see this being a thing. Would still like to hear other thoughts on capital balance if these were set at 27/28% ish resist rather than the 55 of their dedicated counter parts.


Basically using 2 of these and getting an A type EANM's resist profile for a bit less CPU but a fair bit of cap consumption.

What ya think OP?



I love your improvements to the idea. I wish we could get this item no lol.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#11 - 2014-03-11 08:11:21 UTC
I am against it.
Would prefere more Meta types of the existing "Inferno Modules" as the Reactive Armor Hardener...
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#12 - 2014-03-11 13:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Throktar wrote:
I feel that increased cpu and a 50% increase in cap use would offset the power of combining two resists into one slot.


Your feelings are wrong.

Kenrailae wrote:
A scenario that comes to mind is assault frigates....


OP suggests to balance the extreme power of the module by giving it huge CPU requirements and capacitor use, and you immediately jump to assault frigs, which, being frigates, have the least CPU and capacitor to spare. OP thinks fitting these on assault frigates would be a great idea. Do you see the problem I'm seeing?

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Thelonious Blake
Miles Research and Development
#13 - 2014-03-11 14:00:37 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
Would prefere more Meta types of the existing "Inferno Modules" as the Reactive Armor Hardener...


Also reactive shield hardener. Or maybe dual shield hardeners - same like the one OP suggests but for shield.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#14 - 2014-03-11 14:28:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Before they put in the reactive hardener I thought long ago there should be specific hardeners (both shield and armor) against specific weapons. You would wind up with an EM/THRM, KIN/THRM, KIN/EXP. I would have suggested a meta 1 total of 80% resist with the ratio balanced to reflect the average of the weapons in question rather than a straight 40/40 split.

As it is now, they just need to adjust the Reactive Hardener to something less stupid on cap, and create a T2 version. I would suggest something similar be done for shields, but so long as ASB remain useful, capless, and able to fit multiples they really dont need the help.
Kenrailae
Scrapyard Artificer's
#15 - 2014-03-11 14:58:18 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Throktar wrote:
I feel that increased cpu and a 50% increase in cap use would offset the power of combining two resists into one slot.


Your feelings are wrong.

Kenrailae wrote:
A scenario that comes to mind is assault frigates....


OP suggests to balance the extreme power of the module by giving it huge CPU requirements and capacitor use, and you immediately jump to assault frigs, which, being frigates, have the least CPU and capacitor to spare. OP thinks fitting these on assault frigates would be a great idea. Do you see the problem I'm seeing?


You don't read so good.

OP also suggested having this thing do 50% resist x2.

I counter suggested 27%, about in line with a decently shiny EANM.


The Problem I see is Foot in Mouth Syndrome.


BTW, OP's response to counter proposal:

Quote:
I love your improvements to the idea. I wish we could get this item no* lol.

*Believe this is a typo for now*

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-03-12 04:01:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
No, they should not be 55% on both resists.

I have been pushing for "custom" hardeners using two resists at 35% and I think that's pretty balanced. Those would be meta 0 though. Meta 5 ought to be 40%, so officer probably more like 46-48% and then faction should either be somewhere in between or just 40%. edit: Just realized Estamel's Adaptive Hardener grants +50% to all shield resists

I haven't checked the numbers on the officer values I made up just now but I have played around with the 35% meta 0 and 40% meta 5 quite a bit and I strongly believe they are balanced well with the currently existing hardeners.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#17 - 2014-03-12 12:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Xe'Cara'eos
do this for shields, instead of armour..... Twisted

EDIT:
if you made these so that it would ALWAYS be better to use two specific hardeners of the same meta level, than to use two binary hardeners, it could work, since it'll be the smaller ships that'll be pushed for slots

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2014-03-12 14:33:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ronny Hugo
It would have to have 25, 30 or 35% resistances on two types. Not 55%. People could then for example have one exp+kin hardener in addition to EANM+DCU+plate+plate tank.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2014-03-12 16:48:17 UTC
Throktar wrote:
As a non-capitol pilot, I will fully admit to not putting them in my equation. If they were non-capitol only, what would you think?
A little part of me dies inside every time some arbitrary measure is made to determine which ships can or cannot use which modules.

Capital ships already need to have a reduction in bonuses from one-size-fits-all modules because their higher price tag makes it relatively inexpensive to fit faction and officer modules.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-03-12 17:11:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Ronny Hugo wrote:
It would have to have 25, 30 or 35% resistances on two types. Not 55%. People could then for example have one exp+kin hardener in addition to EANM+DCU+plate+plate tank.
40% would be fine, if it were tech II. Remember that the Adaptive Invulnerability Field II grants +30% to all resists.

It seemed relevant, so I dug up my custom hardener designs. I put a fair bit of work into these and have tested them quite a bit. I do believe they are quite well balanced:

Ishukone Custom Shield Hardener I
* 1mw powergrid, 40tf CPU
* 25gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* +35% EM/Thermal shield resists (+2% passive)
Duvolle Labs Custom Shield Hardener I
* 1mw powergrid, 40tf CPU
* 25gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* +35% Thermal/Kinetic shield resists (+2% passive)
Core Complexion Custom Shield Hardener I
* 1mw powergrid, 40tf CPU
* 25gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* +35% Kinetic/Explosive shield resists(+2% passive)
Ishukone Custom Shield Hardener II
* 1mw powergrid, 44tf CPU
* 25gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* +40% EM/Thermal shield resists (+2% passive)
Duvolle Labs Custom Shield Hardener II
* 1mw powergrid, 44tf CPU
* 25gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* +40% Thermal/Kinetic shield resists (+2% passive)
Core Complexion Custom Shield Hardener II
* 1mw powergrid, 44tf CPU
* 25gj activation cost, 10.00s duration
* +40% Kinetic/Explosive shield resists (+2% passive)



Capital Shield Hardeners:

Capital Adaptive Invulnerability Field*
* 3,000mw powergrid, 60tf CPU
* 400gj activation cost, 20.00s duration
* +25% all shield resists (+1% passive)
Capital EM Ward Field*
* 2,000mw powergrid, 60tf CPU
* 200gj activation cost, 20.00s duration
* +50% EM shield resist (+3%** passive)
>> insert other capital hardeners (no tech II for capitals yet)
*Capital Hardeners: A supcapital ship using one of these capital modules will receive the bonus twice. A capital ship using a normal hardener will receive only half of the bonus.
**I think single-resist hardeners should grant 3% passive resist, both to make room for the 2% passive resist of the dual-type hardeners and because it's really not a lot even after boosted by skills.


Armor hardeners and membranes would follow suit more or less, matching to their own unique styles.



shield and armor rigs: 40% resist (tech 1) and 45% resist (tech 2)
I do strongly believe that the current amounts of resistance granted by these rigs are too low for the penalties they incur, and are perhaps even too low if they did not have a penalty. The current values are less than resistance amplifiers and energized membranes. My proposed values place them higher than amplifiers and membranes, but keeps the sig radius or max velocity penalty.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
12Next page