These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Dec, Kill Reports and New Modules discussion

First post First post
Author
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2012-05-03 22:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
I remember that discussion, and I also remember posting up a possible solution Blink
The issue with the *temporary* boosting is that A, it doens't boost anywhere near enough to be used as you'd like, and B, the reload time is faaaar too crippling.

What if the boosters ran off the total cap being in the booster at the time.
ie: running 2 x 800 would mean 1600 cap in the charger for it to use before resorting to ship cap while reloading.

sidenote:
in regard to the unified inventory, aside from the agreed upon crappy inspace implementation, it would be really nice if there were a filter option for implants and an ability to filter OUT items (ie: three click options for the checkbox)

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#202 - 2012-05-03 23:02:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ohh Yeah
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the fueled shield booster - the first version I made actually used Hydrogen Batteries as fuel directly from the cargo hold, using a script. But there were several issues here, the most serious one being that it didn't fit one of the key criteria of the module, which was this is supposed to give temporary boost only. I.e. the intention was not to create a module that could be run non-stop throughout the whole combat. Instead, the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.

Now, whether cap boosters are the right choice or not can be debated, it has its pros and cons. Yes, it doesn't make sense to use an 800 instead of 400, but that isn't a bad thing per se - people will just use the 400 and that's fine. That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges.


Right now, the temporary tank has absolutely no use in any situation.

With the little number of boost cycles you get before having to reload, I'd expect to be able to get more than 15% of my shields back before being vulnerable for another minute.

You should at least limit the booster to one size charge per module. It's deceiving that the x-large allows 400s and 800s, when 800s rather unclearly put you at a disadvantage.

If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.


There are zero common PvP scenarios where you need a temporarily stronger tank, followed by a point where a weaker one will suffice. Once you're tackled and hostiles are on you, your tank needs to be as strong as it can be for the remainder of the fight, at which point you kill tackle and burn some distance, or deagress and jump/dock. Usually, this temporary SUPERTANK can be achieved by overloading. A new shield booster that gives you a slightly stronger tank for 15 seconds ain't gonna cut it, because you're always in deep **** overloading your tank for longer than 15 seconds.

Even if this new shield booster gave you back 100% of your shields and then made you vulnerable for a minute, it still doesn't compare to a standard shield booster because it cannot be sustained.

What I'm saying is there is never a time where anyone needs a stronger tank for 10-15 seconds and then they're in the clear to have less tank for a while. DPS doesn't come in waves like that. Once you're in a situation where you need tank, you're already in over your head and need that tank as long as you can manage it. Super tanking for 15 seconds while tackled only delays your death 15 seconds, whereas standard shield boosters stand a chance to keep you up long enough to turn the fight around.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#203 - 2012-05-03 23:05:55 UTC
Pic'n dor wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Caellach Marellus wrote:
Legion icon on the kill reports is huge compaired to the rest.


thanks:)



In fact, all T3 are not scaled correctly !

http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/341444Capturedcran20120503231746.png

and the tengu in the same kill report is concerned too.


thanks:) I clearly need to kill more of my alts in t3 ships on my local serverBlink

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Conjaq
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#204 - 2012-05-03 23:06:02 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the fueled shield booster - the first version I made actually used Hydrogen Batteries as fuel directly from the cargo hold, using a script. But there were several issues here, the most serious one being that it didn't fit one of the key criteria of the module, which was this is supposed to give temporary boost only. I.e. the intention was not to create a module that could be run non-stop throughout the whole combat. Instead, the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.

Now, whether cap boosters are the right choice or not can be debated, it has its pros and cons. Yes, it doesn't make sense to use an 800 instead of 400, but that isn't a bad thing per se - people will just use the 400 and that's fine. That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges.


Bolded the important part.

If you want active tanking to be viable, you got to change how you want a shield booster to work.

Giving it an almost non-important amount of shield produced(look at zarnak's post) makes it exactly as "good" as before.
You need to give it longer viability, if you want active tanking to be a viable fitting style.

300 HP in a 8 second timeframe is 37,5 HP a second. Last i looked a frigate easily do 200 before resists which means this beast of a booster can help your AF to sustain your shield for an incredible 8 seconds.

Do you really want a fit, that can only sustain its minimal EHP, for an incredible 8 seconds?... i would take passively tank any day of the week. because once those 8 secs are passed, your ship is toast.... Fast because you dont have a buffer to back you up.....

A suggestion would be to have it boost your shield massively, give it a long reload time(like now) ... and make every single cycle Really count.

Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#205 - 2012-05-03 23:29:45 UTC
Given it's limited nature, I'd agree if that's the way it works you make it boost a huge chunk of shield so you use it to come back from the brink of going into armor.

This way the limited nature of that tank can save you a number of times but that time is limited and the enemy knows it.
Dwindlehop
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2012-05-03 23:34:53 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges.

Could you nerf the base boost so it is weaker than the equivalent-sized shield booster, buff the overheat bonus so the overheated shield/second & shield/cap are the same as current Sisi overheated stats, remove the restrictions on cap charges used, and restore a normal reload time?

As it stands, the lack of boost during the reload means I don't want it on my ship. However, if you allow it to produce a crappy boost for "near" endless time, that would not be overpowered, right? And the overheated stats would allow for the serious temporary boost that would give this module utility in PVP.
Azura Solus
Rules of Acquisition
#207 - 2012-05-03 23:37:05 UTC
Conjaq wrote:
[quote=CCP SoniClover
A suggestion would be to have it boost your shield massively, give it a long reload time(like now) ... and make every single cycle Really count.




Agreed would be a whole lot more viable if this could bring us back from the brink of death, otherwise as was stated before a cap booster and normal shield rep will be better.
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#208 - 2012-05-03 23:40:11 UTC
my issue with the boosters is why use them... i mean if i have to have cap booster 400's or 800's in my cargo why not just use an X-L and an injector for cap... i mean the wouldn't that be more helpful? i mean i get its sorta a hybrid cap booster/shield booster combo but the cap booster only helps the shield booster... but that also has the drawback that the cap booster would have allowed you to keep your hardeners online the cap boosted shield module won't have that ability....

so to be viable it really needs to have something that gives it a kickperhaps the ability to load it with a cap 800 and have it "prearmed" so that it boosts on incoming damage, that way it could be the anti-alpha module, so as soon as you get hit with a maelstroms 1400's the booster goes off and sucks that cap booster 800 or X amount of cap boosters to tank that incoming damage... up to as much boost as possible?

t1 = boosts cap booster size x2 as many cap boosters as needed to cover incoming damage...
t2 = boosts cap booster size x2.5 as many cap boosters sucked as needed to cover incoming damage for the volley

so volley hits that does 3200 after resistences calculated, so a big alpha strike, you have 3 cap booster 800's in cargo, you get struck, it pulses on impact and sucks in 3 cap booster 800's negating 2400 of that volley

so you only take 800 damage, run out of cap boosters, and walla the shield booster is useless...

see that i would see as useful

buffer tank = good vs dps
cap injected shield booster = good against alpha protection
standard booster = good for basic warfare but requires you know ... ability to use it at the perfect time lol


just my idea :S
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#209 - 2012-05-03 23:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim
Azura Solus wrote:
Conjaq wrote:
[quote=CCP SoniClover
A suggestion would be to have it boost your shield massively, give it a long reload time(like now) ... and make every single cycle Really count.




Agreed would be a whole lot more viable if this could bring us back from the brink of death, otherwise as was stated before a cap booster and normal shield rep will be better.


or that :S :)

perhaps my idea above would be better as a "shield damage absorbtion module" lol or armor :S

for current one just do something like .... S uses cap booster 50's , M uses cap booster 100's, L uses cap booster 800's and when activated restore a percentage of your shields that are damaged, so its an emergency shield module, you activate it when u're at almost 5% left and it buffs you back to X% of your damaged shield back :S
Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2012-05-03 23:51:07 UTC
Actually, yeah, I fully support the new shield boosters being an absorption module.

You put in fuel, and the fuel is converted into damage that can be absorbed.

In other words, you don't turn it on to boost your shields up, you turn it on to absorb incoming damage. This better accomplishes the goal of a temporary sustained tank that CCP is looking for. Every minute, you could load more fuel and absorb another 200/500/3k/7k damage depending on the size ancillary booster you use.

I would use these in a heartbeat, because they're so useful.

If all of the damage in a fight switches onto you, you can react by turning on the module and absorbing some damage to get to range and assess the situation.

CCP, if you've ever listened to a player's advise on what to do with a proposed module, please take the suggestion of the gentleman above me and do this.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#211 - 2012-05-04 00:08:04 UTC
Hey Team Superfriends, CCP Punkturis hope you're past the worst of the flu.

Quick one. The new webbing drones, regardless of size have 110m Signature each, where as say, the cap drain drones, scale down from large to small (110m Signature being large).

Is this deliberate, or just an oversight at this stage. Many thanks.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2012-05-04 00:17:30 UTC
THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken.
I'll just leave you guys to think about why. Think about SPR tanking, only amplify it with that idea lol.

I think you (the players) are missing the point of the boosters.
They aren't supposed to replace the traditional method of boosting. They are supposed to be an alternative for ships that have a limited number of grid/cpu or slots for propulsion, tackle, and tank.

ie: cyclone hulls, ferox hulls, & and some battleships/frigates

The number one ship in my mind is the Nighthawk.
It's no anemic on grid/cpu that these boosters (working properly) would make the ship incredibly good.

These boosters (should you decide to fit them) should be FLYING through cap.
This should allow CCP to have another angle at balancing by something other than fitting & slots; I'm talking about cargo.
Shield tanker with a high number of mids (ie: Tengu / Blackbirds)? Smaller cargo.
Shield tanker with a lower number of mids (ie: Ferox Hulls)? Bigger cargo.
Then you can go about adjusting those cargo number based on approximating how much damage a ship is capable of or what it can fit etc..

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#213 - 2012-05-04 00:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
What is the point of the shifting armor hardener?

In terms of PVE, it just seems to provide the convenience of having to swap hardeners less often.

In PVP, its role seems like an EANM, but better...A way to omnitank without having to worry about resist holes..So, makes damage type selection and taking note of your resist holes less important.

What was CCP trying to solve by adding it to the game?
Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#214 - 2012-05-04 00:30:26 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken.
I'll just leave you guys to think about why.


You're right, there's a good chance you could fit multiple of them and keep it up infinitely.

What about the module having a 1 minute cycle timer, but giving you ~40% of your shields back? It wouldn't be active tanking, but would be something of a compliment to passive tanking I guess.
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
#215 - 2012-05-04 00:43:57 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
What is the point of the shifting armor hardener?

In terms of PVE, it just seems to provide the convenience of having to swap hardeners less often.

In PVP, its role seems like an EANM, but better...A way to omnitank without having to worry about resist holes..So, makes damage type selection and taking note of your resist holes less important.

What was CCP trying to solve by adding it to the game?


silly your gonna get alpha'd when u're damage type switches from your enemy, or possibly on you r first cycle due to the fact you'll only have what 10% resist? lol
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#216 - 2012-05-04 00:45:42 UTC
I fail to see why shield tanks need even MORE burst tank, while they already vastly outclass armor tanks in that regard.

Armor already has to deal with being stupidly slow due to the rigs/modules needed. Why more shield love?
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club
#217 - 2012-05-04 01:23:18 UTC
I gotta say that a lot of these modules seem very underwhelming.

The Drone upgrades require 40tf for only a 12% damage boost while other weapon mods provide a 10% damage boost and a 10.5% rate of fire boost for 30-40 tf.

The Adaptive Armor Hardener seems to only change at a rate of 1% every 10 seconds. By the time it adapts to the right values, either you are dead or the target is dead. Better off using another ENAM or a DCU. It might have use if it doesn't have a stacking penalty, but even then its use is limited.

The Overclock CPU rigs have a ridiculous callibration cost for a small increase in CPU. 300 for a 9% increase in cpu? ACR give 10-15% increase in PG for 100-150 calibration respectively.

The Ancillary Shield booster is not worth it. I'd much rather sacrifice another midslot for a cap and shield booster. Once you have to reload caps, you are rice paper for a full minute.
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#218 - 2012-05-04 02:27:50 UTC
Ohh Yeah wrote:


If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.


Assuming they make it worthwhile:



  • Tank that is Nuet Resistant

  • You can burst active tank ships that normally don't have the capacitor to active tank - think Jaguar or even Vagabond.

  • Rather then completely skip a buffer in exchange for a booster and cap booster you can have both worlds with a buffer and an Ancillary Shield Booster.

  • It frees up your own capactitor to fit other things - nuets on a Cyclone for example.
Ohh Yeah
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#219 - 2012-05-04 03:04:05 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Ohh Yeah wrote:


If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.


Assuming they make it worthwhile:



  • Tank that is Nuet Resistant

  • You can burst active tank ships that normally don't have the capacitor to active tank - think Jaguar or even Vagabond.

  • Rather then completely skip a buffer in exchange for a booster and cap booster you can have both worlds with a buffer and an Ancillary Shield Booster.

  • It frees up your own capactitor to fit other things - nuets on a Cyclone for example.


Yeah, I meant in the current state.

If they implement it correctly, you would be able to active tank a number of new ships and it would be interesting. Currently, there is no point.
Frood Frooster
EVE University
Ivy League
#220 - 2012-05-04 07:19:18 UTC
Why do you break the principle of making meta 0 modules producable by a seeded BPO by making some of the new items only producable by a dropped BPC?

If you don't want the new modules to spread like a meta 0 module, can't you just give them a higher meta level and keep the coherence of modules in the game.