These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Stealth Coating - Low Power Module and/or Rig

Author
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#1 - 2017-06-24 15:45:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Hi there,

The fitting options in this game are excellent and truly allows us to customise ships for almost any purpose one could think. There are however some things we can't seem to do - and this is particularly evident with alpha clone limitations.

At present we have no way of reducing ship signature radius. I would imagine that such a module should take the form of a lowslot module and would reduce the ships signature radius - such that targetting lock times are increased and combat scanner probes require greater strength to get a fix on the vessel. For balance purposes I would recommend the following attirbutes:

1. The stealth coating occupies a lowslot;
2. It reduces the ship signature radius by a percentage;
3. Only one stealth coating may be fitted to a ship;
4. The module is incompatible with the Damage Control Unit module type - such that a ship may be fitted with the DCU or stealth coating; but not both.
5. The module interferes with hull integrity - reducing hull resistace with a debuff.

I think that this module has a place in the game. Particularly considering that alpha clones do not have cloaking technology avaliable and this will aid their survivability in certain environments where cloaking is typically used.


/discuss.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#2 - 2017-06-24 16:01:12 UTC
I have mixed feelings on this idea. I don't see anyone wanting to give Alpha Clones any additional tools short of a plex to Omega or pay the 10-15 dollars a month.

Here is what I would do with this idea. I'd put it on a speed tanked interceptor or stealth Bomber and drop the signature radius 10+%...? IT doesn't seem like a big deal until you are locking a ship and it takes an additional 5 to 10 seconds to lock.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#3 - 2017-06-24 16:14:24 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
At present we have no way of reducing ship signature radius.

- Drugs
- Fleet boosts
- (I am sure there is one more but I can't remember it off the top of my head)


Honestly though, I would argue that there is a reason Sig Radius has limited options to modify/manipulate.

It is a very powerful stat that affects a whole bunch of mechanics.

At the moment:
- you can build an Assault Frigate or Interceptor with a Sig Radius smaller than a light drone. Coupled with an Afterburner, this makes such ships quite strong (bordering on "unreasonably") against larger ships.

- Heavy Assault Cruisers using Afterburners are currently a strong "meta" due in large part to their relatively small Sig Radius. This only increases their strength and would make them even more desireable versus larger ships.



Marcus Binchiette wrote:
The fitting options in this game are excellent and truly allows us to customise ships for almost any purpose one could think. There are however some things we can't seem to do - and this is particularly evident with alpha clone limitations

Sorry, but... I don't see this as a particularly strong argument.

Alphas are supposed to be "unlimited trials." And they are already quite effective for the money a person pays (see: they pay $0 a month).
Rai Hantzel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2017-06-24 17:46:39 UTC
I think this a cool idea, and I know a lot of ships that would benefit from a smaller signature radius but I think Devs might throw it under the cloaking category to be fair.
Revis Owen
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#5 - 2017-06-25 02:31:40 UTC
Fit a plex to your alpha account, and all problems are solved.

Alpha accounts are already getting more than their money's worth from the game. No need for more.

Agent of the New Order http://www.minerbumping.com/p/the-code.html If you do not have a current Mining Permit, please contact me for issuance.

Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#6 - 2017-06-25 03:27:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Well forget about alpha clone state. Point still remains that stealth coatings would be a useful module to have, and it have a definite purpose. Reading the info on different stats it should be possible to balance the off grid "combat probe stealth", with the on grid "target lock steath". As these use different attributes and can be balanced separately.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#7 - 2017-06-25 14:35:16 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Well forget about alpha clone state. Point still remains that stealth coatings would be a useful module to have, and it have a definite purpose. Reading the info on different stats it should be possible to balance the off grid "combat probe stealth", with the on grid "target lock steath". As these use different attributes and can be balanced separately.

Go back and study again.
Signal strength of probes, sensor strength AND sig radius of the target ship are all used in the equation for probes.
Your sensor strength and the sig radius of the ship you are trying to target are the major factors in lock times.
Sig radius of the target is a major factor in the missile damage calculations.
Sig radius of the target ship is also used as a factor in turret damage calculations.
So you see your idea changes significantly more than just lock time or being probe scanned.

Since all of a ships attributes are considered when they are balanced adding the ability to decrease your sig radius with a module or rig screws up the balance of every single ship in the game and that would require CCP to go back and re-balance every single ship in the game.

Playing along just because.
You have proposed and idea that has major implications in every combat related area of the game, yet you have not offered anything on the negative side of the equation to balance this new capability. Since the negative aspects of a module or rig are an integral part of balance and their use you need to go back and look at your idea and then propose the negative factor or factors that you think would balance out properly the benefits of the module or rig. And yes YOU need to do this because it would force you to look at how and why this module would affect the way things are and that knowledge would help you fine tune your idea into something that may actually be workable in the game.

Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#8 - 2017-06-25 15:58:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Donnachadh wrote:
...

Playing along just because.
You have proposed and idea that has major implications in every combat related area of the game, yet you have not offered anything on the negative side of the equation to balance this new capability. Since the negative aspects of a module or rig are an integral part of balance and their use you need to go back and look at your idea and then propose the negative factor or factors that you think would balance out properly the benefits of the module or rig. And yes YOU need to do this because it would force you to look at how and why this module would affect the way things are and that knowledge would help you fine tune your idea into something that may actually be workable in the game.



But I did exactly that.

Marcus Binchiette wrote:
4. The module is incompatible with the Damage Control Unit module type - such that a ship may be fitted with the DCU or stealth coating; but not both.
5. The module interferes with hull integrity - reducing hull resistace with a debuff.


Maybe re-read the original proposition. Yes, sig radius is a major factor in damage calculations - and so are resistances. If the module were to induce a resistance debuff, along with also denying the use for DCU, that would provide sufficent dis-incentive for it to be used in any application where the ship would expect to be recieving damage.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#9 - 2017-06-25 18:16:13 UTC
Not exactly.

For smaller ships, their tank is dependant more on Sig Radius and mobility than straight resistances and tank.
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
#10 - 2017-06-26 05:54:04 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
At present we have no way of reducing ship signature radius.

- Drugs
- Fleet boosts
- (I am sure there is one more but I can't remember it off the top of my head)



Halos.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

GROUND XERO
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#11 - 2017-06-26 08:40:17 UTC
the current meta is telling us to use oversized AB cruisers to not get dunked by fighters ..... so helping oversized ab-ships will help to heal the fighter madness even more :-)! +1

NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!

Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#12 - 2017-06-26 10:07:46 UTC
A full set of high grade halo implants will give you a 20% sig reduction for a modest 460 million ISK. These will work on any ship you fly and require no fitting room. The downside is they are destroyed if you get podded. Seems like a reasonable risk/reward balance to me.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#13 - 2017-06-26 13:17:08 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
But I did exactly that.

Uses a low slot, can only fit one, cannot be used in combination with the DCU and reduces hull integrity, did I get all of your supposed negatives. So let us look at these.

Low slot module. Since you cannot fit the DCU this is not really a negative it is simply a fitting decision, do I want higher resists OR do I want a smaller sig radius both will boost the effectiveness of your tank.

Cannot be used with the DCU, see above.

Reduced hull integrity. I do not consider this to be a negative, while you are reducing the hulls integrity the reduced sig radius also increase the effectiveness of your shields and armor so this changes very little especially considering what you gain by reducing the damage taken because reduced sig radius.

CCP never gives us something without taking away something of equal value. In this case the most likely thing to happen based on CCP's history would be an increase in the base sig radius of every ship in the game so that when you fit this module we would be right back to where we are now. Considering that this would make your module a must fit item does that change the game in a positive way?

What follows is a concern based on some initial tests in a damage prediction calculator and may or may not prove to be true, with that stated here goes.
Sig radius plays a larger role in the damage calculations for missile than it does for turret based weapons systems. As a result of this my initial testing shows this module would be significantly more effective against missiles than it would be against turret based systems. Did you look into this aspect, if not then you should and see if you can change it so it has an equal affect on turret based systems.
Matthias Ancaladron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2017-06-26 20:02:01 UTC
I'd rather have it be stackable and make you harder to be scanned down or invisible on dscan.
Marcus Binchiette
Federal Vanguard
Evictus.
#15 - 2017-06-26 22:33:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Marcus Binchiette
Dannachadh,

I understand what you are saying - and agree that the balance considerations could be more complicated than I originally thought. If the negative debuff to hull is not enough this could also be extended to the armour and shield layers as well. Such that the stealth coating induces a "semi-polarised" state upon the ship.

Ideally, isolating those parameters which impact a ships propensity to being scanned down with combat probes was what I was aiming for. However, if it is impossible to isolate this from on grid target locking and damage implications while on grid my idea could be difficult to balance. Futhermore, I also understand the concerns with biasing ships against missile and fighter forms of damage application. So that concern is also valid.

The original premise was that by selecting stealth coating as a fitting option, the pilot would render their ship incapable of tanking damage in a combat scenario. If however this is not the case the idea might require modification.
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#16 - 2017-06-26 22:54:26 UTC
Well you could look at one rig, the shield extender rig I inverse the the bonuses. It would get you within the realm of balanced.

It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#17 - 2017-06-27 13:08:36 UTC
Marcus Binchiette wrote:
Dannachadh,

I understand what you are saying - and agree that the balance considerations could be more complicated than I originally thought. If the negative debuff to hull is not enough this could also be extended to the armour and shield layers as well. Such that the stealth coating induces a "semi-polarised" state upon the ship.

Ideally, isolating those parameters which impact a ships propensity to being scanned down with combat probes was what I was aiming for. However, if it is impossible to isolate this from on grid target locking and damage implications while on grid my idea could be difficult to balance. Futhermore, I also understand the concerns with biasing ships against missile and fighter forms of damage application. So that concern is also valid.

The original premise was that by selecting stealth coating as a fitting option, the pilot would render their ship incapable of tanking damage in a combat scenario. If however this is not the case the idea might require modification.

More thoughts.

Anything that can increase your ships sensor strength makes you harder to scan, perhaps some changes or additions in this area can achieve part of your goals.

Something along the lines of the modern radar absorbing coatings used on modern combat aircraft and ships could be a possible option as well. By absorbing a portion of the signals used to scan and target lock you could affect both of those functions, yet it would not alter the sig radius and therefore would not impact the damage calculations.

Seems like it is time to rethink your goals and how to achieve them.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2017-06-27 17:00:09 UTC
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Well you could look at one rig, the shield extender rig I inverse the the bonuses. It would get you within the realm of balanced.


Anyone know what happen if you apply a negative resist modifier to a resist already at 0?
Axure Abbacus
Pentex Subsidiaries Corp
#19 - 2017-06-30 10:59:18 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Well you could look at one rig, the shield extender rig I inverse the the bonuses. It would get you within the realm of balanced.


Anyone know what happen if you apply a negative resist modifier to a resist already at 0?

You have to be trolling me.
Shield EXTENDER rig adds a bonus to hp with the drawback of higher signature. Strike that reverse it, as they would say.


It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2017-06-30 13:26:17 UTC
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Axure Abbacus wrote:
Well you could look at one rig, the shield extender rig I inverse the the bonuses. It would get you within the realm of balanced.


Anyone know what happen if you apply a negative resist modifier to a resist already at 0?

You have to be trolling me.
Shield EXTENDER rig adds a bonus to hp with the drawback of higher signature. Strike that reverse it, as they would say.




My bad, I got confused with something else on my mind.

As for your suggestion, it's still a bad idea to have too many things affecting sig radius. Just think of current sig tanking ships. Their current options are essentially going faster but you hit some kind of wall with diminishing returns on those mods. If you also add sig reduction options, they start getting stupidly hard to shoot but also get a lock on.

At the end of the day, OP is asking to be somewhat resistant to being probe scanned down while following the alpha limitation. I'm pretty sure this can be done already by using sig amp and sensor booster to raise your sensor strength so there is no need for new mods.
12Next page