These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Armor plating and shield extender rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#21 - 2015-01-14 15:20:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


I have one that can chase down interceptors. :frankfrank:

Show me, I wanna see that!

I'd train for interceptors just so I could see if I could escape from that Monster. Big smile

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#22 - 2015-01-14 15:40:06 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Since you seem to have no idea how doctrine fits are created either I don't think it really matters. But if you think that people try literally every possible combination then you really should think a little harder about it.

"people" aren't responsible for the doctrine of their alliance. "people" anti-tank their freighters and put 3b worth of stuff in them.
I don't claim to know it all, I only claim to have seen that the people that do know it all (the big coalitions) don't field battlecruisers and battleships lately. Its all Isthars and tengus for cruiser sized hulls (some zealots still flying around), and Harpy frigates. Nothing other than that is fielded except for special occasions. They also don't fit the small armor plates and shield extenders, so its obvious that those modules aren't any good.


All those Dominix fleets didn't happen in Fountain for the past two months? And we totally didn't fight against a fleet of Ravens in WY- last week? And we didn't fight against TFI's and Apoc Navy Issues on several occasions in Fountain? Battleships are seen fairly often, but it certainly isn't like it was in the past.

As for how some alliances come up with doctrines, they do extensive theory crafting and spend lots of time comparing a variety of fits. Then they try it out. Most just shamelessly copy whatever they see working. Other alliances seem to pick their doctrines based on "the FC did some market speculation and ended up with 500 "X" hulls. The new alliance doctrine is "X" (until they are all sold)."

I agree with you on the small plates and extenders, but would like to see Eve rebalanced in a way that makes the smaller more useful.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2015-01-14 16:01:05 UTC
I think the issue isn't that the small plates and extenders aren't useful. It's that the larger ones are just too useful in relation to their fitting costs and mass/sig penalties.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#24 - 2015-01-14 18:08:31 UTC
I think if we had XL buffer modules, they would be used simply because they take up only 1 slot as opposed to 2x large buffer mods. And then theorycrafters would try to squeeze two of them on anyway just to see if they can do it.

And the small and micro buffer mods are useless. So a rebalance of buffer modules along the proposed line is in order. As long as we're at it, CCP, plz gib skill to reduce the sigRad penalty on shield extenders. And more shield resist mods of all kinds. There are so many armor mods and comparatively very few shield mods.

I would also be inclined to agree that having dessie/BC-sized prop mods would be cool.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#25 - 2015-01-14 18:30:36 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
I think you are posting pretty far into falloff.


This made up for the OP
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#26 - 2015-01-14 20:58:37 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Ronny Hugo wrote:
Some things that CCP needs to be bloody aware of:
1. The battlecruisers need their own prop mod size, they're horribly slow with 10MN stuff.
2. The armor plates and shield extenders have completely wonko pg requirements and HP bonuses.
The HP bonus they give isn't enough, and each class needs its own size with a tailored HP bonus and tailored PG requirement. Right now battleships fit large shield extenders and cruisers fit large shield extenders. Cruisers fit 1x 1600mm plate, and battleships fit 2. Given the drawback of battleships being so slow and such a higher sig radius, why would anyone then fly battleships given that they don't have better tank?
Frigates use medium shield extenders, FYI. All extenders below that are useless. The plates don't have the same low PG requirements so we still see 400mm plates on frigates, but really they would be using 800mm as their smallest module if they could.

Also, the repair bonus to dreadnoughts may have worked brilliantly back when there was 100 dreads in total in the game, but now self-reppers are completely and utterly useless for anything but PVE. All the self-reppers do is make just one more module of lag whenever a dread is targeted by a fleet.
Therefore I propose that the 1600mm armor plate has its HP bonus increased, along with all the smaller ones. I have no idea how much the HP has to be raised. In addition to this I propose a 3200mm plate for dreadnoughts and capitals which has appropriate PG requirements and armor hp bonus.
I also propose thatthe shield extenders are reworked roughly the same way. Another XL shield extender must be added for dreadnoughts and other capitals. I don't imagine titans and supers will use XL shield extenders or 3200mm plates, but its at least very useful for dreads.
The dreadnoughts are also very unbalanced, and I don't think they ever can be balanced. I therefore suggest they are just given different things to be the master of. So the moros is the damage master (across the entire spectrum of distance to target), the naglfar is the alpha strike master (across the entire spectrum of distance to target), the revelation is the tank master (bonus to armor resists and/or HP so a 4x damage-mod fitted revelation can survive a DD as its specialty), the phoenix is the ... festival launcher master or something, you get the point.

It would be nice if drones was removed completely, they just laaaag. But its less tiresome to just take lunch, I gather. Don't you know that calories expended on removing drones means you can eat more cake? So no point being lazy.


I agree with parts of this. It has always bothered me that ships could fit "oversized" tank and propulsion modules. I get that it adds some variety and allows for creativity, but not when the standard fit is always "oversized" tank mods. When the standard for every frigate is a Medium Shield Extender or Medium Ancillary Shield Booster (or two) or GTFO, something is wrong. What Eve needs however, is not to bump the modules up, but to bump them down. Large buffer tanks are required in blob fights and require blobs to fight. If you want people to spread out, reducing buffer tanks is one way to do this. This would also be a direct buff to active tanks. Therefore, I propose:

1600mm plate / XL Armor Repair - battleship module
800mm plate / Large Armor Repair - BC module
400mm plate / Medium Armor Repair - cruiser module
200mm plate / Small Armor Repair - destroyer module
100mm plate / Micro Armor Repair - frigate module

Extra Large Shield Extender / XL Shield Booster - battleship module
Large Shield Extender / Large Shield Booster - BC module
Medium Shield Extender / Medium Shield Booster - cruiser module
Small Shield Extender / Small Shield Booster - destroyer module
Micro Shield Extender / Micro Shield Booster - frigate module

Adjust amounts boosted by all the above to come up with something that is balanced. Currently, "proper" sized modules are useless or so much less efficient as to be practically useless. Fix that.

Capital ships don't need additional options for buffer modules. Nor do they need additional options for propulsion modules.

For the propulsion modules, rebalance it along these lines, but don't put any fitting restrictions. If a ship wants to go for an oversized propulsion module, it should be possible, but at a greater tradeoff than currently.

100mn - battleship module
50mn - BC
10mn - cruiser
5mn - destroyer
1mn - frigate

Ronny Hugo wrote:


We also need a passive shield resistance module that gives resistance to all 4 damage types, so we can fit passive tanks to shield tanking dreads when it is obvious that there will be 100% tidi.
Lol


This part I completely disagree with.

The size comparisons are very clean and well-ordered; I'm a big fan of rebalancing buffer modules as you've stated, and I also support the above sentiment of making capital-sized buffer and tank modules.
The issue at hand though, is logistics. Logi in its present form is far too powerful, and removing the inability to receive reps during siege for dreads needs to be coupled with a VERY carefully tuned logistics rebalance.

You are spot-on with the class sizing for buffer and prop mods, though. Do you have an idea for what the fitting reqs for those might be?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#27 - 2015-01-14 23:51:46 UTC
Honestly, a change this broad would require reworking fitting requirements pretty extensively. I'm not going to throw out specific fitting numbers. Nor do I care whether destroyers should fit a 2mn Afterburner or a 5mn Afterburner - that is for CCP to decide.

With that said, active armor repair modules provide a pretty good model. You cannot really fit over-sized active armor repair modules on most ships - without really making fitting sacrifices. Adjust the fitting scale for all the buffer modules, and the active shield modules, to stay in line, and you would have a pretty decent balance.

Really what this is ultimately about is making BC's and Destroyers more distinct ship classes, so we would have five distinct subcapital ship classes instead of three.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#28 - 2015-01-15 02:08:08 UTC
So, item by item.

BC & DD prop mods: +1 but a cautious one, as done wrong they would be just plain better than the stock 1 & 10 mn prop mods.
Rebalance buffer mods: +1.
Swap BCs to all large guns: -1
Dread changes: not enough info to judge fairly, but nothing new or paeticularly nice yet.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Previous page12