These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

armor tank revamp (stealth cruiser/frigate buff)

Author
Rawls Canardly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2011-12-03 17:26:02 UTC
there are a number of issues with armor plates (some of these problems apply to shield extenders as well). I will list them and how I perceive them to be best fixed. Similar fixes can be done to shields to maintain balance.

1. The only viable plate is the meta 4 plate. No exceptions.
Tech II modules actually perform worse than their meta 4 counterpart, with the highest mass of the pile. I propose the following:
Meta 0: baseline armor, baseline mass penalty, baseline fitting reqs
Meta 1: 2.5% gain in hp (compared to meta 0), 5% reduction in mass penalty(compared to meta 0) 5% increase in PG use
Meta 2: 5% gain in hp (compared to meta 0), 15% reduction in mass penalty (compared to meta 0) 10% increase in PG use- viable minmatar option
Meta 3: 10% gain in hp (compared to meta 0), 5% reduction in mass penalty (compared to meta 0), 5% increase in PG use - according to lore, gallente use this material in T2 ship production anyway, best option for them
Meta 4: 15% gain in hp (compared to meta 0), no reduction in mass penalty (compared to meta 0), 15% increase in PG- Amarr option
Meta 5: 20% gain in HP, 20% increase in mass, 20% increase in PG (a true tech II module), change name to a number 20% higher and remove the stupid " I " and " II " designations) (120mm Reinforced Steel Plates, 1920mm Reinforced Steel Plates, etc)

2. Faction plates offer nothing special.
They are the same stats as meta 4, only with less mass. I suggest the following:
Federation: based on meta 3 plates, add an inherent 5% resist kinetic damage. no other changes.
Imperial: based on meta 4 plates, add an inherent 5% resist explosive damage. no other changes.
Syndicate: IDK what this is. apply the resist most common to their enemy.

3. The smaller plates are largely unused, and the largest plates in the game are expected on most cruiser fits.
This is just plain silly, and easy to fix.
Double all stats on every plate in the game. effectively, 50 becomes 100, 100 becomes 200, etc... and you'll see cruisers trying to decide whether 400 or 800 is better for them, instead of automatically cramming 1600's on there. BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN: This frees up a low-slot on most BC/BS fits, enabling more gank/resists/whatever. all this really does is change the plate type you use.

4. Mass gained is an arbitrary number.
Come on, does it take as much steel to cover a VW bug as it does a school bus? No? Then why do they weigh the same (in game)?
This should be a % penalty, based on surface area (or, if CCP wants to be lazy, volume). For instance:

-old system-
Hurricane- Mass 12,500,000kg Volume 216,000.0 m3 + 1600 plate 3,750,000kg = 16,250,000kg 24.1% increase
Typhoon- Mass 103,600,000kg Volume 414000.0 m3 + 1600 plate 3,750,000kg 107,350,000kg 4.5% increase

-new system-
Hurricane- Mass 12,500,000kg Volume 216,000.0 m3 + 1600 plate 800% of volume(scale by plate size, mm/2 ) = 14,228,000kg 13.2% increase
Typhoon - Mass 103,600,000kg Volume 414000.0 m3 + 1600 plate 800% of volume = 106,912,000kg 13.2% increase

This would affect smaller craft much less than it does under the new system, making them faster and more agile. (as a side affect, the lighter gallente craft would immediately become more useful)
example:
Thorax- mass 11,280,000(wait what it's almost as heavy as a cane?) volume 112,000 m3 + 1600 plate (13.2%) = 12,768,960kg
HOWEVER, if you drop to 800 plate...
Thorax- mass 11,280,000(wait what it's almost as heavy as a cane?) volume 112,000 m3 + 800 plate (6.6%) = 12,024,480kg

signifigant reduction in penalty. The formula might need to be tweaked a bit, but the concept is there.
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#2 - 2011-12-03 19:44:14 UTC
+1

The low tier plates (50, 100, 200) do need to be addressed. They don't add enough HP compared to their agility penalty. Either buff the HP bonus a bit, or nerf the penalty a bit. These are designed for frigates, who rely on speed for defense, so the ratio of HP/Penalty needs to be addressed with that in mind. Rigs penalty as well, and that goes for all ships- I suggest buffing the armor rigging skill instead of rigs themselves, so serious armor tankers need to invest in it. To be fair, only minor tweaks are needed imo- armor tanking is valuable and used often, but it's functionality on the smaller ships needs to be adjusted.

The meta 4/t2 problem is obvious, ancient, and so easy to fix it's ridiculous.
Rawls Canardly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2011-12-03 20:59:05 UTC
That's the best part about this plan, all the changes are fairly minor and non-game breaking.just some common sense stuff to set things right.
Kittamaru
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-12-05 19:21:59 UTC
Bumping to say +1 :D
Rawls Canardly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-12-07 02:28:48 UTC
Thanks, I appreciate that. I know you all are quite used to the way things are, but if you feel they should be better, now's the time to speak up before Hilmar gets his head back into it's usual location and starts pushing out half-finished features again....
although Cruicible was no different imo. half-finished hybrid buff, half-finished V3 texture buff, etc.