These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Updated] [June] Module Tiericide - Armor Plates and Shield Extenders

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ripard Teg
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#21 - 2015-05-20 23:30:18 UTC
Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by!

I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#22 - 2015-05-20 23:47:01 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by!

I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream?

Is this just a sneaky way of saying you want x-large shield extenders?
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#23 - 2015-05-20 23:48:50 UTC
I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate.
small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why).
so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase.

I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something.

those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#24 - 2015-05-20 23:50:20 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by!

I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream?

Is this just a sneaky way of saying you want x-large shield extenders?

First, +1 to making small shield extenders frigate sized and medium shield extender designed for cruisers.

If that isn't going to happen (which it totally should!) XL Shield Extenders would be a fantastic idea so Shield BS don't always have to fit 2 large shield extenders.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#25 - 2015-05-20 23:53:01 UTC
Also, +1 to getting rid of 100mm plates.
Circumstantial Evidence
#26 - 2015-05-20 23:55:27 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by!

I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream?
Hmm. Do you mean to suggest a complete rethink, so that small parts only fit on small ships, or just additional thought on the stats for extenders?

When I started EVE, I thought small parts went on small ships. After a while, I discovered the part size class names (S/M/L) had little to do with what ship size class they fit on.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#27 - 2015-05-21 00:01:57 UTC
I'd be hesitant to go any larger than LSE's and 1600mms. Battleships already come equipped with massive tanks built into the ships base stats, allowing even larger buffers would have a big change on the current meta.

TrouserDeagle wrote:
I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate.
small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why).
so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase.

I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something.

those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties.


I agree with this. Plates are overshadowed, 200mm or 800mm rarely get used in any of my fittings, and 100mm are non existant. Ancillary reppers have made this situation even more severe.
Ripard Teg
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#28 - 2015-05-21 00:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ripard Teg
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by!

I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream?

Is this just a sneaky way of saying you want x-large shield extenders?

If CCP really wants to avoid XLSEs, there are ways around it, such as narrowing the gap a little between the sizes. The SSE1 could be given the MSE1's fitting requirements and give +900 shield. The MSE1 could be given the LSE1's fitting requirements and give +1800 shield. And the LSE1 could require say 400 grid and give +2700 shield. That would better differentiate the sizes. As it is, nobody is going to continue to use the SSE. Twice **** is still ****.

That said, I don't think it would be too imbalancing to add an XLSE1 as long as the fitting requirements were balanced. Say 1200 grid required, giving +3600 shield. Shield tanking on the high end is underpowered compared to armor tanking. A lot of battleships could absorb such a module without having to change much. Those that couldn't (hello, Minmatar!) would have to make some fitting choices. More choice is nearly always a good thing.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
unidenify
Deaf Armada
#29 - 2015-05-21 00:34:54 UTC
those Small Shield Extender would be game changing in Fit. they give more CPU but less PG plus less sig radius when fit 2 of those module vs their counterpart Medium
Who know, maybe we can see tanky Corax with 2 Small Extender
Ripard Teg
Jerkasaurus Wrecks Inc.
Sedition.
#30 - 2015-05-21 00:45:24 UTC
unidenify wrote:
Who know, maybe we can see tanky Corax with 2 Small Extender

Very few people are going to give up a precious mid to do this. Besides, as it is a MSE Corax has a sig of 78m, a third of most medium guns. It doesn't really need the help and the frigs that might double SSE need it even less.

The only place you'll see SSEs is where we see them now: badly-fit industrials and barges.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#31 - 2015-05-21 01:03:00 UTC
CCP Delegate Zero wrote:

As a reminder the meta module signifiers used for these changes are:

  • Restrained: lower penalties on use


Still calling technological equipment "restrained," eh? This doesn't get any more plausible merely by virtue of repetition. I doubt I'll be fitting these.

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#32 - 2015-05-21 01:24:45 UTC
Is there any possibility of releasing 3200mm plates and XL extenders? Battleships need some serious love, and introducing battleship-sized buffer mods would go a long way towards that.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#33 - 2015-05-21 01:27:30 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate.
small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why).
so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase.

I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something.

those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties.

I agree; the restrained plates should have the lowest mass out of any of them, either more so or tied with certain faction plates (it seems like the fed navy plates are the lightest with this).
Muon Farstrider
Hidden Flame
The Ancients.
#34 - 2015-05-21 01:41:33 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
unidenify wrote:
Who know, maybe we can see tanky Corax with 2 Small Extender

Very few people are going to give up a precious mid to do this. Besides, as it is a MSE Corax has a sig of 78m, a third of most medium guns. It doesn't really need the help and the frigs that might double SSE need it even less.


Problem with the Corax in particular is that the damn thing has what feels like zero PG. You put a full rack of light missiles and a microwarpdrive on it and you're literally at 59/60 PG, even with AWU V. You need a MAPC *and* a current router to get a MSE on one. I'm just a newb, but at least in a non-solo situation I'd consider putting 2x SSE on it since it's not quite as critical to have the full rack of mids on every ship in that case. (Especially because I can make up for the extra module slot by replacing the MAPC with a signal enhancer instead of using a sebo.) It does offer a few options for ships that have the midslots.
Alexis Nightwish
#35 - 2015-05-21 01:58:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
Lochiel wrote:
Request to change the naming pattern to Nmm [Restrained|Compact] [Flavor Name] Plates

So that when I search for "200mm Restrained" I get exactly the module I was looking for?


I'd much rather have the size in between the tiericide name and the type of module it is like this: [flavortext] [tiericide name] [size] [shield extender/plates]. Example: Rolled Tungsten Compact 1600mm Plates

This way I can search for all "Compact 1600mm" or all "1600mm Plates" and get what I'm looking for.


Large F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extender   CPU 35 (+1)
Really?!


CCP, if your goal is to get people to fit SSE or sub-400mm plates on their frigates, or to encourage people to use medium tank modules on their cruisers, this isn't going to do it. The slots are too precious, and even with the new stats I'd rather have a resist module instead of a small HP module.

Also you're completely missing the chance to fix something that's been broken for a long time: the disparity between armor and shield at larger sizes. What do I mean? Well the go-to HP modules for frigates is the MSE and 400mm. These add around 1000 HP to your ship. Armor a little more, shield a little less but given their inherent balancing factors (mass vs sig radius, higher base resists vs regeneration) this is fine.

Now look at the go-to for everything cruiser and up: LSE and 1600mm. HUGE disparity between their HP. 1600mm armor literally gives 80-90% more HP than LSE! This is a primary factor in why you only see armor in large fleet fights. They give so much HP, and penalize speed so little, and sig radius not at all (I'm not even going to talk about bombers here. I have another thread for that.), and they have better inate resists, that it's the obvious choice.

Another thing you're missing out on is the opportunity to provide more fitting options for shields. Right now you have three shield sizes, and five armor. Why not make five shield sizes as well like so:

     [SIZE]                        [APPROX HP Sh/Ar]                [FITTING RESTRICTIONS]
Micro/100mm              400-500/500-600              Perfect for Frigates
Small/200mm              600-750/750-900              Perfect for Destroyers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Frigates
Medium/400mm           800-1000/1000-1200       Perfect for Cruisers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Destroyers; prohibitive for Frigates
Large/800mm             1500-1800/2000-2400      Perfect for BC, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Cruiser; prohibitive for Destroyer down
X-Large/1600mm         2750-3250/4000-5000      Perfect for BS, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for BC; prohibitive for Cruiser down


I know you guys aren't going to look at these modules for years after this. Please take the time to fix them now!

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#36 - 2015-05-21 01:59:40 UTC
I like this. Finally pimp has a meaning for buffer mods. Can't you smuggle in a x-large shield extender category? I want to blow BS appropriate amounts of PG and CPU on an extender!
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#37 - 2015-05-21 02:15:15 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
probag Bear wrote:

The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again.


tl;dr:
Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module.
Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used.

They are also much in demand for TDF logi in incursions.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#38 - 2015-05-21 02:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
About to say it's good, but need to check fittings.

Yaay!!!!
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#39 - 2015-05-21 02:26:49 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:


Another thing you're missing out on is the opportunity to provide more fitting options for shields. Right now you have three shield sizes, and five armor. Why not make five shield sizes as well like so:

     [SIZE]                        [APPROX HP Sh/Ar]                [FITTING RESTRICTIONS]
Micro/100mm              400-500/500-600              Perfect for Frigates
Small/200mm              600-750/750-900              Perfect for Destroyers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Frigates
Medium/400mm           800-1000/1000-1200       Perfect for Cruisers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Destroyers; prohibitive for Frigates
Large/800mm             1500-1800/2000-2400      Perfect for BC, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Cruiser; prohibitive for Destroyer down
X-Large/1600mm         2750-3250/4000-5000      Perfect for BS, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for BC; prohibitive for Cruiser down


I know you guys aren't going to look at these modules for years after this. Please take the time to fix them now!


I kinda like this, and noodled up a slightly different version, which was based off of the ratios between existing modules, which I included in a post inside the battleship balance proposal I'm working on. Important part of this post quoted below
Quote:

XL Shield Extender II 6563HP 879PG 63CPU 90Sig
And

3200MM plate II 9600HP 1438PG 39CPU 15000000 kg

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Midori Tsu
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#40 - 2015-05-21 03:01:06 UTC
I think the syndicate plates should get another look at, with the proposed changes there will be very little reason to use them over the other the fed navy, especially when you consider the price and availability.

I have yet to see an armor tanked ship that needs the PG so much that it will take an increase in CPU. In any case, if that were an issue the trade off for the fed navy will work just as well and is better as it uses less cpu, 25 pg is not much of an increase. not to mention fed navy adds less mass.

As for price and availability, the fed navy has it beat as well, it comes from FW which just pours out LP. At tier 2 it is a single 10 minute novice plex to get enough LP to buy the plate from the LP store. That's with a T1 frigate. So when you consider how saturated the market will be and how easy it will be to get these to market, these will be easy to get. The syndicate plates will require a minimum of 3 missions in a tengu or battleship. Then you'll have to move it with a jump freighter, cloaky transport or hope to god a good wormhole appears nearby. Not to mention, you'll have to live in syndicate. I don't think we'll see a large availability of these.

So why would i ever want to pay more for something that has 5% less PG and is worse in every other way?

If the syndicate plates had less mass than the fed i think it might be a good trade off.