These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tactical Shield Manipulation, shield uniformity, and why it can be bad
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#21 - 2015-07-27 03:12:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
If warp out is not possible then your idea will have no effect on the end result since it does nothing to change the max EHP of your ship / fit. The only thing your idea does is shorten the time between shield failure and ship exploding because you have already taken armor damage so there is less to protect you.

False, in many cases it buys you a LOT of time. This is why it is extra important in PVP. It is difficult to test in PVP which is why my numbers come from PVE, but it is in PVP where you are much more likely to be forced to stand your ground. Passive regen tanks could be a lot better (and perhaps actually useful) in PVP if the pilots actually lacked that shield uniformity that TSM provides.

And we can go on for days telling each other that they are wrong, you have your experiences and I have mine and they are diametrically opposed. Absent specific details and verifiable information in the end we have opinions and that means that neither of us is right, but then neither of us is wrong.

But in the end all I need to do is raise the questions, as the OP of this idea it is YOUR responsibility to give us the FACTS, not opinions as to why this is better, to this point in the debate you have not provided any facts that can be verified by others.

I did program a simulation to run this ........ Oh never mind even if I posted pages of data from that simulation you would not believe it anyway so prove me wrong with something other than the simple statement "false". In other words show us some numbers.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-07-27 14:49:58 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
I did program a simulation to run this ........ Oh never mind even if I posted pages of data from that simulation you would not believe it anyway so prove me wrong with something other than the simple statement "false". In other words show us some numbers.

Please do show your data. I do not know where I can find such a simulation. My point should become vividly clear once I have concrete numbers to show.

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."
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#23 - 2015-07-27 15:23:25 UTC
Very late Drake whine thread. Ugh Anyway the shield regen stats on BCs have always been stupidly tilted to passive regen. The level 4 pve Drake was/is an oddity. Other BCs cannot perform to the same degree in that part of the game. Unfortunately it looks like CCP is not going to ever put BC shield regen in line with the rest of the ship progression. But I doubt there is any desire to buff passive shield tanking either.

Get in a BS and stop mourning the assplosion of your one pve Draek. Straight

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#24 - 2015-07-27 17:29:59 UTC
solution - damage occured by shield non-uniformity is ADDITIONAL to normal damage, which continues to apply on shields.
TSM no has an excellent use again, even for armour tankers :D

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.
Enya Sparhawk
Black Tea and Talons
#25 - 2015-07-27 20:08:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Enya Sparhawk
Ok, I think I got you... I personally, will have to disagree with what you are suggesting. I get what you want but let me counter suggest this:

Your problem stems from here (the formula below)...

There is missing information from this (mainly the logarithmic scale used to determine what the 'peak' becomes and what determines everything else down the scale; something that is factored with shield cap in hp divided by shield recharge in seconds)

Essentially, the only way to fix this is to eliminate the peak (or the 2.5 multiplier) at one specific point and redistribute it to a smaller degree among a range...(a 2.0 multiplier maybe?) So If you were looking at the scale on a graph, imagine pulling on both ends of the line so that it didn't form a Mountain shape anymore (with a strong peak) but more like a rolling hill covering more of the lower regions; yet slightly greater than just average hp/sec which would be a straight diagonal line.

Right? A greater uniformity among the very slow regen zones...

Then the means to alter it with some player decided action...


wiki/Passive_shield_tanking wrote:
In short, the smaller your shields, the faster they regenerate - until you hit 25%, then the speed drops. X is your hit-point regeneration at peak regeneration which is at 25% shield strength, 8 to 52% shield strength are strong areas, 0 to 8% and 90%+ are very slow.

You are between 2.0 and 2.5 regen at 8% to about 52% You are between 2.3 and 2.5 regen at 13% to about 41%
To work out peak regeneration

•Peak regeneration (shield cap / shield recharge rate)*2.5=x
•Average region medium to long battle (shield cap / shield recharge rate)*2.2=x
•Average region short to medium battle(shield cap / shield recharge rate)*2.0=x


Outside of this, the only other option I can think of would be to create a whole new module based off of the same principles of the Reactive Armor Hardener/Armor Resistance Phasing. Something that would allow your ship's shielding to fortify against a specific type or two of damage by altering uniformity to the other types. Allowing the other two or three to penetrate the shield against the armor (which would have its own resist) leaving less strain on the shields from the start as opposed to just under 25%. So many details to figure out with something like this though... If its something you activate, would you treat it like one of the recharge mods taking directly from the totals of caps/shield or actually have it take from cap directly every cycle (which sort of defeats the purpose of passive)...

That would be pretty advance though... it could be used effectively but definitely not something for the inexperienced passive shield tanker.

Fíorghrá: Grá na fírinne

Maireann croí éadrom i bhfad.

Bíonn súil le muir ach ní bhíonn súil le tír.

Is maith an scéalaí an aimsir.

When the lost ships of Greece finally return home...
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-07-30 12:00:36 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Very late Drake whine thread. Ugh Anyway the shield regen stats on BCs have always been stupidly tilted to passive regen. The level 4 pve Drake was/is an oddity. Other BCs cannot perform to the same degree in that part of the game. Unfortunately it looks like CCP is not going to ever put BC shield regen in line with the rest of the ship progression. But I doubt there is any desire to buff passive shield tanking either.

Get in a BS and stop mourning the assplosion of your one pve Draek. Straight

It's not unique to Drakes. The strongest passive shield tanking battlecruiser is the Myrmidon. The biggest factor in the strength of a ship's passive shield tank is the total number of mid and low slots it has, due to the way the shield regen rate boosts stack cumulatively with no stacking penalty. It is the same as how cargohold expanders work with industrials, though in their case the use of expanders is expected, so the base cargohold size can be adjusted accordingly. This is not the case with shields--the Myrmidon cannot have its base shield regen rate reduced simply because it has one extra mid/low slot, because many or most viable Myrmidon fits are not passive shield fits and may be unfairly nerfed by this.

Ships that are viable passive shield tankers: Merlin, Caldari Navy Hookbill, Breacher, Republic Fleet Firetail, Worm, Succubus, Garmur, Astero, Hawk, Harpy, Jaguar, Raptor, Moa, Caracal Navy Issue, Osprey Navy Issue, Gila, Cynabal, Orthrus, Stratios, Vigilant, Ashimmu, Phantasm, Eagle, Cerberus, Ishtar, Broadsword, Onyx, Ferox, Drake, Myrmidon, Drake Navy Issue, Brutix Navy Issue, Hurricane Fleet Issue, Harbinger Navy Issue (no, really!), Gnosis, Vulture, Nighthawk, Claymore, Sleipnir, Rokh, Scorpion, Raven, Raven Navy Issue, Dominix, Megathron, Hyperion, Megathron Navy Issue, Dominix Navy Issue, Typhoon, Typhoon Fleet Issue, Tempest Fleet Issue, Rattlesnake, Nightmare, Barghest, Machariel, Vindicator, Nestor, Bhaalgorn, Golem, Vargur

and I probably missed a few!



Enya Sparhawk wrote:
Essentially, the only way to fix this is to eliminate the peak (or the 2.5 multiplier) at one specific point and redistribute it to a smaller degree among a range...(a 2.0 multiplier maybe?) So If you were looking at the scale on a graph, imagine pulling on both ends of the line so that it didn't form a Mountain shape anymore (with a strong peak) but more like a rolling hill covering more of the lower regions; yet slightly greater than just average hp/sec which would be a straight diagonal line.

It doesn't have a strong peak, it already is a very smooth change. It still doesn't fix the issue because even a marginal decrease in your HP/second regen can make the difference between your shields holding stable and your shields dropping rapidly.

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."
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#27 - 2015-07-30 12:43:29 UTC
So, if I understand you properly, what you're trying to do is tweak passive shield tanks so that they can survive longer at "just past broken" incoming DPS levels by letting more of their damage bleed through to armor.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't that sound suspiciously like active shield tanking?


I can understand why you want this change and sympathize with your position (I flew passive Drakes and Myrmidons for years), but I totally oppose it for the simple reason that active and passive shield tanking are supposed to be different, not the same.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-07-30 12:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Bronson Hughes wrote:
So, if I understand you properly, what you're trying to do is tweak passive shield tanks so that they can survive longer at "just past broken" incoming DPS levels by letting more of their damage bleed through to armor.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Bronson Hughes wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong...but doesn't that sound suspiciously like active shield tanking?


I can understand why you want this change and sympathize with your position (I flew passive Drakes and Myrmidons for years), but I totally oppose it for the simple reason that active and passive shield tanking are supposed to be different, not the same.

I don't see the similarity. Also, I'm proposing this less out of a desire to have it and more to make the point that in some cases the effect of the skill Tactical Shield Manipulation is strongly negative. I don't passive shield tank anymore, it's way too broken. The mechanics need a LOT of work. Even if it is strong in combat I simply don't enjoy it as much as I enjoy active armor tanking, which is much better built.

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."
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2015-07-30 14:56:47 UTC
To be honest, and as someone else has already mentioned, passive shield tanking in general needs a make over.

I think pure passive shield tanks should have very few shield HP but very fast regeneration of the shields.

Shield Flux Coils should be made into very extreme modules that devestate your total shield HP pool but increase your shield regen rate enormously.

Shield Power Relays should increase the level of shield percentage where max regeneration occurs with the drawback of reduced Cap as is now.

Shield Rechargers remain the same as now as midslots are so precious.

This way Passive shield tanks would have a niche of awesome dps tank but weak vs alpha strike.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2015-07-30 15:05:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I think shield rechargers need a buff, it's difficult to justify giving up a mid slot (where you could fit another hardener) to instead put in a weak shield recharger, even for a shield regen tank. Shield flux coils definitely need a buff; as it stands they offer a way smaller bonus to shield recharge rate after you factor the amount lost by the reduction in shield amount.

Shield Flux Coil I
Shield Recharge: -25%
Shield: -15%
0.85 / 0.75 = 1.1333 ---> actual recharge bonus: +13.33%

Shield Power Relay I
Shield Recharge: -20%
1 / 0.8 = 1.25 ---> actual recharge bonus: +25.00%

Shield Recharger I
Shield Recharge: -10%
1 / 0.85 = 1.1111 ---> actual recharge bonus: +11.11%

Shield power relays are just far stronger than the other two. Compare, four of each:
4x Shield Flux Coil I: +64.98%
4x Shield Power Relay I: +144.14%
4x Shield Recharger I: +52.42%
As you can see, the gap grows larger the more modules you use.

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."
Previous page12