These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 / shield rig concept discussion for Inferno

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Javius Rong
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#121 - 2012-04-23 18:14:06 UTC

why not remove all negative aspects from armor and shield rigs, simple solution.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-04-23 18:15:27 UTC
This screws Caldari ships horribly. Their sig radius is already pretty terrible due to the modules they fit, so the sig penalty didn't do much. They are already pretty slow to begin with as well. So, now they will have slightly smaller, but still terribly large sig radii as well as being even slower. Unless you plan on getting rid of the sig radius penalty for extenders, this is just going to be a big nerf to Caldari ships.
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#123 - 2012-04-23 18:16:06 UTC
Javius Rong wrote:

why not remove all negative aspects from armor and shield rigs, simple solution.


Working towards the power creep is always bad. But removing the penalties from active tanking rigs would be a step in the right direction.

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Max Butched
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2012-04-23 18:18:15 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Should have formulated the original post more as a question than a statement, sorry for the confusion.


The point of posting this in "Feature & Ideas Discussion" is because it is a high level concept that was passed along, and that we wanted to discuss before doing anything with it as it has some repercussions.

This is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has been started on it yet. We don't want to repeat the problem that happened with booster changes during Crucible, thus the point of this is to involve player feedback earlier in the development process so we can filter points out before they make it to Singularity.


I will tweak the first post to reflect this.

you know there is something like a council specially elected that you can ask if this kind of change is dumb or not, before putting it this way to the community, i think its called the CSM but i'm not sure...
chris elliot
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#125 - 2012-04-23 18:19:39 UTC
CCP Ytterbium

If you wanted to make active tanking more viable why not increase the bonus's of the rigs used in active tanking and leave the other rigs alone? Maybe tack on a small calibration penalty to keep it even? It may make a few ships like the myrmidon 'lolbricks' but then again you already have a passive 'lolbrick' in the drake.

Arbiter Reformed
I Have a Plan
Shadow Cartel
#126 - 2012-04-23 18:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Arbiter Reformed
tbh just dcII your vaga and put pollys on it .... win

no but srsly

give shield rigs an armor penalty and armor rigs a shield penalty
Fraa Bjorn
Cell 317
#127 - 2012-04-23 18:25:09 UTC
I like these changes. Sure, my current ship may be hurt by it, but if you go through with this then lots more of the existing ships will find use in battles.
TLDR; Nice change, expands Eve's usable ships from 1 or 2 to 10 or 20 IMHO.

All games have QQ, but only Eve has Q.Q
Callic Veratar
#128 - 2012-04-23 18:28:36 UTC
Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.

A resistance rig gives a 30% bonus to one damage type, the drawback could be a 5-10% reduction to all the other resistances.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#129 - 2012-04-23 18:33:58 UTC
I hate this change because it buffs drakes + friends (keeps their buffer tank, decreases their sig radius, and they don't care about speed because they were bricks to begin with) while nerfing the hell out of HACs and cruisers.
Suliux
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2012-04-23 18:34:10 UTC
WTF?!?!? ... A buff does not require something else to be nerfed.

Seems one should focus on the related mods first, something as simple as increasing HP repaired seems a better fix than this convoluted mess.

Mioelnir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2012-04-23 18:36:21 UTC
Harimata wrote:
This has some very interesting implications. For large fleets, it will prevent someone from getting volleyed off the field due to large amounts of alpha damage -- but this will force logis to keep repping ships for a longer amount of time. Also, makes titan DD's much more interesting, making it possible to take a DD and potentially be saved by a large amount of reps.

Edit:
Thoughts? I can see this becoming a big game-changer mod. It will change how fleets fight/engage and probably put more logis on the field. At the same time, it should be possible to create a EWAR type module that has the opposite effect -- this will distribute remote reps to a target over time.

And thus an interesting mechanic proposed to help ative tanks has just tremendously boosted passive buffers since this mod ensures that they will not be spiked prior to the first incoming reps.

To promote active tanks, this needs to be a feature of the active tanking mod where incoming damage gets queued and evened out in overlapping damage queues, with your active tank constantly working against those queues. Damage in the current timeslice above your rep ability is removed from your HP buffer. Reps above the current damage slice replenish your base HP buffer. With a visual aid how much damage is currently piled up against you.

The important bit here would be that while every incoming hit gets evened out over for example 10 seconds, against a 2 second rate of fire weapon you would have 5 such evened out queues on top of each other, overwhelming you gradually. One could even add a stacking penalty to those, where above the 20th queue all incoming damage gets a gradual reduction. We'd have to argue what would share the same queue in those cases (individual weapon/drone queues or one queue per attacker).

This would really help small active tanked skirmish gangs, because you know that you can't just outblob their non-scaling reps (needs work on details. not a final suggestion. not fit for direct live use. slippery when wet).
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#132 - 2012-04-23 18:37:22 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.

But thats exactly how the rigs work now.
They affect a basic ship stat (resistance / shield / armor) and get penalized at another basic ship stat (speed / sig).

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#133 - 2012-04-23 18:42:53 UTC
Luba Cibre wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.
But thats exactly how the rigs work now.
They affect a basic ship stat (resistance / shield / armor) and get penalized at another basic ship stat (speed / sig).
No, it's not.

The active tanking rigs (the ones that modify cap draw, repping amount and cycle time) still affect the ship's base stats — sig radius or speed — rather than the fitting requirements of the shield boosters or reppers.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#134 - 2012-04-23 18:43:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:

· It needs to be constant, because outside of a 1v1, that's how the damage will be delivered. The degree of “constantness” determines how large the aforementioned buffer needs to be.
t.

Just the reverse - active tank should provide boosting in large chunks, otherwise it degenerates into boring passive regenetation, something alike current fugly Drakes.

The ratio between total HP and HP repaired per cycle determines fun factor. It's not that exciting to boost 1% of your shields in one go, but boosting like 45% in one cycle is the reason why daring and courageous people love active tanks.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Leontyne Gaterau
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#135 - 2012-04-23 18:43:39 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.


Death to shield kiting.
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#136 - 2012-04-23 18:44:31 UTC
I think its very interesting in concept. I like anything that breaks the mold of "One rig to rule them all" eg Trimarks and CDFExtenders.

I'd also like to see how it plays out in concept.

TBH though Plates vs LSEs still need work. There still is only one plate anyone ever fits, thats the Rolled Tungsten. Most HP, Good on mass, good fitting etc.

I think in conjunction to this you should have different types of plates eg Nanofiber gives a small perportional increase in HP, but reduces hull HP and has slim to no mass addition, or even reduces mass.

Rolled tungsten does the most EHP gain, but has the most mass

Crystaline carbonate has a nice boost to EHP, but also acts like a shield boost amp by granting bonuses to armor rep, or even agility which is very gallente.

Just my 2c.

IMO you can't fix one without the other.
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#137 - 2012-04-23 18:45:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Luba Cibre wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
Following the weapon rigs, I would have to argue that any rig that explicitly affects a module should affect the fitting requirements of the module. Any rig that affects base stats of a ship penalizes other base stats.
But thats exactly how the rigs work now.
They affect a basic ship stat (resistance / shield / armor) and get penalized at another basic ship stat (speed / sig).
No, it's not.

The active tanking rigs (the ones that modify cap draw, repping amount and cycle time) still affect the ship's base stats — sig radius or speed — rather than the fitting requirements of the shield boosters or reppers.

If you had read all my other replies, you would know, that I want to remove the penalties on the active tanking rigs, but except of them (who the fck uses them anyway? (especially shield active tanked rigs)) rigs are fine now.

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 
Jawmare
High Velocity Gamer Words
Covert Otters Venture Into Darkness
#138 - 2012-04-23 18:45:57 UTC
this is ******* ********
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#139 - 2012-04-23 18:49:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Luba Cibre wrote:
If you had read all my other replies, you would know, that I want to remove the penalties on the active tanking rigs, but except of them (who the fck uses them anyway? (especially shield active tanked rigs)) rigs are fine now.
What you want to see changed doesn't change the fact that your answer was incorrect: what Callic describes is not how rigs work now.

Fon Revedhort wrote:
Just the reverse - active tank should provide boosting in large chunks, otherwise it degenerates into boring passive regenetation, something alike current fugly Drakes.

The ratio between total HP and HP repaired per cycle determines fun factor.
It's also why active tanks are pointless: because it means your reps add roughly zero hitpoints and thus become meaningless.
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#140 - 2012-04-23 18:52:55 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:

A resistance rig gives a 30% bonus to one damage type, the drawback could be a 5-10% reduction to all the other resistances.


Balance, not nerfbat... this kind of "idea" will just make the resist rig usless. Remmeber the nosferatu nerf...