These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Semi Organic / Crystalline Armor Modules for Passive Armor Regen
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ugh zug
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-08-19 23:07:39 UTC
while we are at it lets make a passive omni resist for shields~! Roll

Want me to shut up? Remove content from my post,1B. Remove my content from a thread I have started 2B.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#62 - 2012-08-19 23:48:16 UTC
Lavitakus Bromier wrote:
Nvr said it would be easy or cheap.

And thats a good thing. It means it can be a little more powerful that the easier to get stuff.

I love the idea.
Dennis Gregs
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2012-08-20 03:25:42 UTC
While I understand why the idea of passive armor tanking can sound appealing, I enjoy the diversity between armor and shield as it currently is, so I'm against this idea. If you want a passive tank, you can always fit your ship for passive shield tank.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#64 - 2012-08-20 03:55:00 UTC
A solo armor buff tank has a huge disadvantage in that it cannot rep itself at all. Have it give some armor HP, use extra PG, toss in the cap and staking penalties, make it a very slow rate, and it sounds good to me. There should never be a passive armor tank, but "lick your wounds" regen would be acceptable.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#65 - 2012-08-20 13:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Obsidiana wrote:
A solo armor buff tank has a huge disadvantage in that it cannot rep itself at all.

So don't fly armor buffer ships solo. Buffers in general aren't meant for extended solo operation: if you're flying a shield buffer and lose 80% of your shield, you've got quite a while to wait for the recharge, while you're hanging out alone in dangerous space.

This is what I don't understand about some people on these forums: the game provides a number of well-balanced ship fitting options, and they complain because --insert fitting here-- isn't well-suited to --insert activity here--. You aren't restricted to just one doctrine; I fly whatever fit suits my goals.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#66 - 2012-08-20 14:03:30 UTC
Loius Woo wrote:
Armor repper and capacitor flux coils?

All the mods suggested so far exist, just not *quite* in the specified form. An undersized armor rep has the same effect as the proposed passive armor regen.


No they don't.

Cause a passive armor regen would work even while you had ZERO capacitor the same way passive shield regen does.
And there would be a PEAK regen just like shields, so a small armor repper would not do the same thing.

I think you don't understand how passive shield regen works....[/quote]

Why are you counting on regen when you have zero cap? Do you frequently sit in space with your capacitor tapped out, waiting on your shields to recover?

If you have time to let your shields build back up, you have time (and capacitor) to run an armor repper. So back to my original statement: you can already do this, just not in the way the OP envisions.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-08-20 14:19:46 UTC
if this means i can have XL-Shield extenders and a passive omni-resist module for my shield ships

... basically no, there are pros and cons for each tank style

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#68 - 2012-08-20 17:46:42 UTC
A Soporific wrote:
That would remove the specialization. Armor tanks have higher effective hit points and the ability to use utility modules with the drawback of being slow. Shield tanks have passive regeneration and the ability to use damage modules with the drawback of taking more damage from oversized opponents. This is how the two distinct techniques specialize and play differently.

To add passive regeneration for armor tanks (even as an optional add-on) would upset this balance signficantly and remove one of the key differences that make the techniques different. There NEEDS to be a distinction, and that line must remain sharp. I would rather see the addition of something else entirely than something the muddies the water between various tanking methodologies.


You also left out the part where they are faster and have a similar ehp tank of a armor tanking ship.
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2012-08-20 18:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Loius Woo wrote:
someone wrote:
Armor repper and capacitor flux coils?

All the mods suggested so far exist, just not *quite* in the specified form. An undersized armor rep has the same effect as the proposed passive armor regen.


No they don't.

Cause a passive armor regen would work even while you had ZERO capacitor the same way passive shield regen does.
And there would be a PEAK regen just like shields, so a small armor repper would not do the same thing.

I think you don't understand how passive shield regen works....


Why are you counting on regen when you have zero cap? Do you frequently sit in space with your capacitor tapped out, waiting on your shields to recover?

If you have time to let your shields build back up, you have time (and capacitor) to run an armor repper. So back to my original statement: you can already do this, just not in the way the OP envisions.



If you are in a fight where there is cap warfare happening, and you are in a passive shield tanked ship, the cap drain doesn't affect your tank at all, your shield still regens at the same rate regardless of capacitor charge. In the same situation in an active armor tank, you are screwed.

In the middle of a fight, a passive drake can have around 275+ dps worth of passive shield regen. That means that when shields are at peak regen, and with no capacitor at all, the first 275ish damage every second is just going to keeping the shields where they are at which significantly increases the amount of damage required to actually destroy the ship.

Armor tanks have NO option to have a similar setup, which if you have 70 million SP and are cross trained in all races, is no big deal, but if you started as Amarr, and don't have the cross training, this can be a big pain in the butt and it hurts new players.

So, it has nothing to do with recovering between fights, it has to do with surviving a fight at all.

So back to your original statement, you are wrong. Thats not what the OP is talking about and you still don't know how passive shield regen works.
LiBraga
State War Academy
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-08-20 18:19:09 UTC
I'm for it.... if you give us an implant set that extends our shields so we can have a buffer like armour scaps.

Adding a passive regen to armour tanks will just widen the divide between armour and shield caps.
EHP of armour caps when fitted "properly" is insane compared to shield caps. Giving them passive regen would just increase the buffer in combination with remote reps.
I personally don't mind what's suggested but you have to account for all ships that could be effected in combination with all the variables.

The wisest comment I've seen in response to this "Go play the game"

If it moves.... You obviously didn't kill it the first time.
A Soporific
Perkone
Caldari State
#71 - 2012-08-20 18:58:07 UTC
MIrple wrote:
A Soporific wrote:
That would remove the specialization. Armor tanks have higher effective hit points and the ability to use utility modules with the drawback of being slow. Shield tanks have passive regeneration and the ability to use damage modules with the drawback of taking more damage from oversized opponents. This is how the two distinct techniques specialize and play differently.

To add passive regeneration for armor tanks (even as an optional add-on) would upset this balance signficantly and remove one of the key differences that make the techniques different. There NEEDS to be a distinction, and that line must remain sharp. I would rather see the addition of something else entirely than something the muddies the water between various tanking methodologies.


You also left out the part where they are faster and have a similar ehp tank of a armor tanking ship.


I think I mentioned it. Well, exept for "smilar ehp" because according to my playing around to with fitting tools that isn't true in the micro sense.





To repeat myself yet another time, I would love to see armor tankers have more options. Just not passive tanks. An armor based tank with some other drawback than speed and agility, or fittings that allow for an either/or situation, or a hybred armor and hull tank. I don't know, something that requires more action and utility. I don't like the idea of copy/paste.
Kentren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-08-21 00:49:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kentren
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
A solo armor buff tank has a huge disadvantage in that it cannot rep itself at all.

So don't fly armor buffer ships solo. Buffers in general aren't meant for extended solo operation: if you're flying a shield buffer and lose 80% of your shield, you've got quite a while to wait for the recharge, while you're hanging out alone in dangerous space.

This is what I don't understand about some people on these forums: the game provides a number of well-balanced ship fitting options, and they complain because --insert fitting here-- isn't well-suited to --insert activity here--. You aren't restricted to just one doctrine; I fly whatever fit suits my goals.

Let me ask you something since you seem to be all up on this. Are you capable of fully using active and passive shield tanking the to utmost of all (IE fully trained in every skill related to it) how about armor tanking. Ok so now if not tell me can you use all three even if only marginally. So what you just told everyone here is stop suggesting possibility for new and possibly neat things because they should just swap to a totally different tanking style and spend all that much more time training to optimize it.
And before you tell me you fly whatever suits your goals if your a jack of all trades your a master of none.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-08-21 02:11:19 UTC
Kentren wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
A solo armor buff tank has a huge disadvantage in that it cannot rep itself at all.

So don't fly armor buffer ships solo. Buffers in general aren't meant for extended solo operation: if you're flying a shield buffer and lose 80% of your shield, you've got quite a while to wait for the recharge, while you're hanging out alone in dangerous space.

This is what I don't understand about some people on these forums: the game provides a number of well-balanced ship fitting options, and they complain because --insert fitting here-- isn't well-suited to --insert activity here--. You aren't restricted to just one doctrine; I fly whatever fit suits my goals.

Let me ask you something since you seem to be all up on this. Are you capable of fully using active and passive shield tanking the to utmost of all (IE fully trained in every skill related to it) how about armor tanking. Ok so now if not tell me can you use all three even if only marginally. So what you just told everyone here is stop suggesting possibility for new and possibly neat things because they should just swap to a totally different tanking style and spend all that much more time training to optimize it.
And before you tell me you fly whatever suits your goals if your a jack of all trades your a master of none.

Working as intended.
Kentren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-08-21 11:40:46 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Kentren wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
A solo armor buff tank has a huge disadvantage in that it cannot rep itself at all.

So don't fly armor buffer ships solo. Buffers in general aren't meant for extended solo operation: if you're flying a shield buffer and lose 80% of your shield, you've got quite a while to wait for the recharge, while you're hanging out alone in dangerous space.

This is what I don't understand about some people on these forums: the game provides a number of well-balanced ship fitting options, and they complain because --insert fitting here-- isn't well-suited to --insert activity here--. You aren't restricted to just one doctrine; I fly whatever fit suits my goals.

Let me ask you something since you seem to be all up on this. Are you capable of fully using active and passive shield tanking the to utmost of all (IE fully trained in every skill related to it) how about armor tanking. Ok so now if not tell me can you use all three even if only marginally. So what you just told everyone here is stop suggesting possibility for new and possibly neat things because they should just swap to a totally different tanking style and spend all that much more time training to optimize it.
And before you tell me you fly whatever suits your goals if your a jack of all trades your a master of none.

Working as intended.

Did you fail to notice this is a suggestion forum intended to offer ideas for possible changes. Oh guess you didn't go check it again and please never return.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#75 - 2012-08-21 11:43:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
no.
if you want passive regen, you have to use shields. This is why they are different tanking types.
You fools keep requesting trash changes, making it all the same more and more, until at some point we will end up with no armor and shield anymore but just "tanking", simple enough to make eve accessible for every 6 years old, this is what you guys are working on. And then you will probably go on with the next dumb down sh*tty "idea" how we could simplify eve even more for 5 years old.
Kentren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-08-21 12:39:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kentren
Robert Caldera wrote:
no.
if you want passive regen, you have to use shields. This is why they are different tanking types.
You fools keep requesting trash changes, making it all the same more and more, until at some point we will end up with no armor and shield anymore but just "tanking", simple enough to make eve accessible for every 6 years old, this is what you guys are working on. And then you will probably go on with the next dumb down sh*tty "idea" how we could simplify eve even more for 5 years old.


You failed to notice the idea is to offer constructive criticism not be a biased jerk intent to make people feel stupid and give into to your perspective. And you will remember I offered the idea as a curiosity my belief that it will change eve isn't there it would be interesting but not likely. So go take your stupid self and fall down some stairs.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#77 - 2012-08-21 13:03:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
you failed to notice how sh*t your idea was actually, so IMO it doesnt even deserve further discussion - expect flaming.
Passive regen a core idea of shields and its for a big part a definition of shield. How hard is that to miss?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#78 - 2012-08-21 14:12:11 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Loius Woo wrote:
If you are in a fight where there is cap warfare happening, and you are in a passive shield tanked ship, the cap drain doesn't affect your tank at all

Except for those pesky shield hardeners shutting down, dropping your passive regen tank by 30% or more. Armor ships don't have that issue. Once again: diversity is a good thing. If you don't like the attributes of one fitting doctrine, go for another.

Also, cap boosters. Every active armor ship I fly (absolution, vengeance, and pilgrim are my favorites) is fitted with cap boosters.

Loius Woo wrote:
So, it has nothing to do with recovering between fights, it has to do with surviving a fight at all.

So back to your original statement, you are wrong. Thats not what the OP is talking about and you still don't know how passive shield regen works.


I'll see your accusation of my not understanding passive regen and raise you a lack of reading comprehension. Behold:

Fleet Warpsujarento wrote:
Sounds workable. Maybe not as as a way of actually tanking incoming DPS as with a passive shield Drake, but more as a way of not needing to dock and rep after every fight while flying an armor ship.

This would be especially useful in FW or Null, where dockable stations can be many jumps away.


At that point in the conversation, there had been NO talk of in-combat tanking. The OP had a half-formed idea of a passive armor tank at the expense of a cap penalty (which would be really hard on cap-starved Amarr laser boats), and there was the above quote about after-combat repping. Before you toss around insults and accusations of incompetence, I'd suggest you bother to apply context to what you read.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.