These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Why do Armor Plates and Armor Rigs Affect Speed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sigras
Conglomo
#1 - 2012-11-28 09:26:12 UTC
Ok, I understand that in space, you shouldnt even have a top speed, but I understand that for gameplay reasons, the top speed must exist; perhaps we're in some sort of fluidic space or something?

What I dont get is, why does adding more mass to your ship make you move slower? This makes absolutely no sense; what it should affect is agility.

I think this change would also do wonders for balancing the deficient armor tanking ships.

Thoughts?
Sister Lumi
Doomheim
#2 - 2012-11-28 09:58:21 UTC
Plates affect speed because they are low slot so you can't fit damage mods, and shield extenders don't have any penalty. Really quite logical when you think about it.



Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#3 - 2012-11-28 10:03:32 UTC
Sister Lumi wrote:
Plates affect speed because they are low slot so you can't fit damage mods, and shield extenders don't have any penalty. Really quite logical when you think about it.





Increased sig radius is not a penalty?
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-11-28 10:04:59 UTC
Shield extenders have a sig radius penalty. Not nearly as bad but they do have it.
Sister Lumi
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-11-28 10:27:24 UTC
Thomas Gore wrote:

Increased sig radius is not a penalty?


The armor ship has a MWD, so no, the shield ship having a marginally larger sig is not a penalty in practice. MWD pushes the armor ship's sig over the threshold where differences stop making any difference in the tracking formula. Furthermore the sig radius penalty only affects in the tracking formula, whereas ship speed has a much wider effect on how engagements pan out- holding and breaking tackle, moving in range to apply damage and managing transversal.

Sig size does obviously effect things when facing dreads, but it's a niche situation.

I would either:

- homogenize the tank penalties (both speed, or sig radius)
- flip them (armor = sig, shield = speed)
- remove them from modules (leaving only slot layout differences which are pretty major as they are) and turn rig penalties into fitting penalties (armor = reduces PG, shield = reduces CPU)
- make shields suffer more from MWD sig bloom

Meditril
Hoplite Brigade
Ushra'Khan
#6 - 2012-11-28 10:46:30 UTC
The answer is simple: It is done for balance.

Shield extenders raise the signature of ships and this also rises the damage recieved due to better tracking.
Armor plates speed reduction at the end also affects tracking. If you are slower, you can't avoid damage that good.

Without this armor tanking would be completely overpowered.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-11-28 10:57:52 UTC
Sister Lumi wrote:

- make shields suffer more from MWD sig bloom


This is actually a good idea but I would rather see it the other way around, make armor tanks have less negative effect from MWD.

Or replace the speed penalty with a heavy agility one, turn armor tanks into what 100mn cruiser fits are like.
Sister Lumi
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-11-28 11:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Sister Lumi
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Sister Lumi wrote:

- make shields suffer more from MWD sig bloom


This is actually a good idea but I would rather see it the other way around, make armor tanks have less negative effect from MWD.


Yes, that's better wording, current MWD bloom is plenty enough.

Quote:
Or replace the speed penalty with a heavy agility one, turn armor tanks into what 100mn cruiser fits are like.


This I don't like. Armor ships are often brawlers, and they need the agility to operate efficiently in their optimal range. It's no accident that blaster ships have the highest base agility, it's vital for them.

Overall this is a complex core issue and any changes have a big impact on the battlefield.

Maybe keep the plate+trimark penalty, but scale back the mass addition of smaller plates (<1600mm) and just start by removing/changing speed penalty from active armor tanking rigs? As proper armor buffers are in fact quite big and I don't feel that being slow with 180K EHP is an unbearable disadvantage... but at (non-T3) cruiser and frig size the mass penalty could perhaps be a bit milder.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-11-28 11:29:08 UTC
Sister Lumi wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Sister Lumi wrote:

- make shields suffer more from MWD sig bloom


This is actually a good idea but I would rather see it the other way around, make armor tanks have less negative effect from MWD.


Yes, that's better wording, current MWD bloom is plenty enough.

Quote:
Or replace the speed penalty with a heavy agility one, turn armor tanks into what 100mn cruiser fits are like.


This I don't like. Armor ships are often brawlers, and they need the agility to operate efficiently in their optimal range. It's no accident that blaster ships have the highest base agility, it's vital for them.

Overall this is a complex core issue and any changes have a big impact on the battlefield.

Maybe keep the plate+trimark penalty, but scale back the mass addition of smaller plates (<1600mm) and just start by removing/changing speed penalty from active armor tanking rigs? As proper armor buffers are in fact quite big and I don't feel that being slow with 180K EHP is an unbearable disadvantage... but at (non-T3) cruiser and frig size the mass penalty could perhaps be a bit milder.


Good points, it doesn't help that the shortest and longest range turrets are both base armor tankers. Less speed penalty would be really good for active tanks and especially gallente blaster boats with rep bonuses.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#10 - 2012-11-28 11:38:03 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Good points, it doesn't help that the shortest and longest range turrets are both base armor tankers. Less speed penalty would be really good for active tanks and especially gallente blaster boats with rep bonuses.


By the same token, the shortest and longest range turrets are both shield tankers.

I want everyone to do the following:

Go to your fitting tool of choice, and bring up a cruiser that you fly that armor tanks. Now remove the Trimarks, and ask if you would be happy to have that speed.

Now ask yourself, why shouldn't the rigging skills be able to remove the penalty? (or at least greatly reduce it)
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#11 - 2012-11-28 13:02:59 UTC
Trimarks SHOULD brick ships. The idea you are getting massive boosts to EHP at the expense of mobility.

Howerver active armor tanking is broken. It should NOT effect your speed - you already are punished by higher cap per second by using those rigs. Not to mention they are woefully bad at HP/sec repairs, even with ship bonuses.
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69
Crouching Woman Hidden Cucumber
#12 - 2012-11-28 13:43:37 UTC
ITT: People with little understanding of tracking mechanics.

There isn't a threshold where sig increase become irrelevant, its multiplicative so unless you have an entire fight of ideal hits then sig will be a factor


Simple answer is because armour tanked ships have more free mids for hard tackle and thus can still dictate range and transversal up close. Shield fits are faster so they can dictate range and transversal outside of tackle range.


If you chose to burn a MWD throughout a fight then that is your choice to throw away your sig advantage, there happens to be another propulsion module that doesn't give a sig bloom.
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2012-11-28 14:08:17 UTC
Warp drives create friction with real space which is why we act like submarines. Plates add mass which effect agility and the effect of AB/MWD modules

No Worries
Sister Lumi
Doomheim
#14 - 2012-11-28 14:53:22 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
ITT: People with little understanding of tracking mechanics.

There isn't a threshold where sig increase become irrelevant, its multiplicative so unless you have an entire fight of ideal hits then sig will be a factor


Sure there is, it's your theoretical maximum dps. Increasing signature radius does not take your applied damage above this.

MWD sig bloom is enough to take large turret tracking to a level, where the sig radius increase caused by shield extenders does not result in any more damage. Like I said, received damage (in a subcap) from siege guns is an exception and behaves as you write, as MWD sig bloom does not reach the peak paper dps of the dread.

Now obviously in a perfect situation focusing only on tracking, these penalties do cancel each others out- armor low sig/low speed vs shield big sig/high speed. This is the intent of the penalties, and would result in a neatly balanced world.

However, that leaves all the other comparative advantages of speed. Sure, armor tankers can often fit a web in addition to point, but a shield fit can operate outside web range.

Multiple factors affect the balance, and as a result 99 out 100 Taloses are fit with shield tank and MWD, instead of 1600mm plate and AB. Just as an example of comparative advantages, sig radius and speed.

McRoll
Extraction and Exploration Ltd.
#15 - 2012-11-28 16:59:16 UTC
They should have made Gallente ships of 2 categories: the supposed fast and agile ones should be shield tankers and the plated ones should all have tracking and range bonuses to compensate their slowness. Same with Minmatar.

The slow but powerful brick approach works with Amarr after all, why shouldn't it behave the same way with other races?

Armor should reduce acceleration and maneuverability and top speed should remain the same. On the up side you have many midslots for ewar and armor should be a tough nut to crack. Shield is fine as it is. Would make more sense than it does now.
Arcaus Rotrau Romali
Empyrean Enterprise Conglomerate
#16 - 2012-11-28 17:32:14 UTC
Relativistic mass.
Slash Harnet
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-11-28 18:08:59 UTC
Shield Tanking > Armor Tanking. Period.

It isn't a recent development. Slot layout aside (that's a huge issue on its own) shields have too many advantages on their own. Passive recharge is a great example. Its perfectly logical, but without something similar for armor all armor tanks are (to some degree) inferior. Unless you're parked with sentry drones, speed is important. Slower ships are almost always at a disadvantage.

I'd propose a Damage penalty to all non-drone weapons for shield tank mods. Shield is fast but hits softer, armor is slow but hits harder. The tracking sig/speed standoff stays the same. It would also go a way towards evening the slot differences.
Sigras
Conglomo
#18 - 2012-11-28 18:39:47 UTC
Meditril wrote:
The answer is simple: It is done for balance.

Shield extenders raise the signature of ships and this also rises the damage recieved due to better tracking.
Armor plates speed reduction at the end also affects tracking. If you are slower, you can't avoid damage that good.

Without this armor tanking would be completely overpowered.

The problem is that speed affects so many other things!

Larger Sig Radius means:
You take more damage
you get targeted faster (might actually be a good thing if you have blue logistics on the field)

Slower Speed means:
You take more damage
Your retreat is slower
You cant dictate range
Your tackle is worse


See the problem?
Sigras
Conglomo
#19 - 2012-11-28 18:43:57 UTC
Sister Lumi wrote:
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Or replace the speed penalty with a heavy agility one, turn armor tanks into what 100mn cruiser fits are like.


This I don't like. Armor ships are often brawlers, and they need the agility to operate efficiently in their optimal range. It's no accident that blaster ships have the highest base agility, it's vital for them.

Overall this is a complex core issue and any changes have a big impact on the battlefield.

Maybe keep the plate+trimark penalty, but scale back the mass addition of smaller plates (<1600mm) and just start by removing/changing speed penalty from active armor tanking rigs? As proper armor buffers are in fact quite big and I don't feel that being slow with 180K EHP is an unbearable disadvantage... but at (non-T3) cruiser and frig size the mass penalty could perhaps be a bit milder.

See i like the idea of agility being the difference maker.

Ideally, the Gallente would have the fastest ships naturally, but they would have very low agility when compared with their Minmatar counterparts; this would mean that they have to actually use skill to kite, they'd have to keep dodging and weaving to stay away from the faster yet less agile Gallente blaster ships.

As it is right now, the matari can just set "keep at range" and go have lunch.
Sigras
Conglomo
#20 - 2012-11-28 18:49:50 UTC
IHaveCandyGetInTheVan69 wrote:
Simple answer is because armour tanked ships have more free mids for hard tackle and thus can still dictate range and transversal up close. Shield fits are faster so they can dictate range and transversal outside of tackle range.

This sounds great in theory, but the problem is that shield ships never have any incentive to get that close . . . it reminds me of the fight between Jack Sparrow and Will Turner "in a fair fight i'd kill you"
"then that isnt much incentive for me to fight fair then is it?"

Armor ships say "come within 10 km and ill kill you"
Shield ships say "its a good thing i never have to get anywhere near that close"
123Next page