These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Signature Radius Reduction Rig
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-02-04 21:17:19 UTC
I have recently noticed that o the many forms of tanking (armor, shield, speed/sig, etc.) each method has modules and rigs that help you specialize in that area. Except for one: Signature Radius. The only way to reduce your sig radius as I am aware of, is through fleet bonuses given from command modules. And in that case also most command ships (excluding T3s) are too big to use this effectively with other ships that would need it (ex. frogs, destroyers, and cruisers). So i came up with the idea of a rig that would provide a signature reduction bonus. i decided against a module since most modules don't have drawbacks, which might lead to an unfair advantage for low sig ships.

Signature Reduction Rig I:

15% reduction in signature radius

Penalty:
10% reduction in shield capacity

Signature reduction Rig II:

20% reduction in signature radius

Penalty:
10% reduction in shield capacity

The idea is, since adding shields gives you a larger signature radius, taking them away would give you a smaller one. This also prevents super-fast, small sig radius ships from becoming too overpowered (mostly for Tier 3 BC arty fleets). i haven't quite decided what the rigging cost would be since i don't fully know the decision making behind it. it could be easily possible that you can only fit 2 rigs. these rigs would come in handy for some ships that rely on speed and sig radius.

Thanks for reading
Opinions, Comments, and Suggestions welcome.
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#2 - 2013-02-04 22:06:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Akara Ito
Would be OP for armor tanks, the penalty should be Capacitor (Buffer not recharge rate) or simply speed to make sure everybody is equally frelled.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#3 - 2013-02-04 22:12:16 UTC
It actually makes sense, saying this ops armor tanks is like saying astronautics rigs op shield tanks

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-02-04 22:19:52 UTC
Akara Ito wrote:
Would be OP for armor tanks, the penalty should be Capacitor (Buffer not recharge rate) or simply speed to make sure everybody is equally frelled.


It is a possibility, but my reasoning for it was that most armor ships are slow and bulky, so they would not be able to use the sig reduction to its full advantage. Though it might be possible for an armor based artillery ship but i think those are mostly avoided because of their lack of agility in comparison to shield artillery. But it would be interesting to see a heavy-tanked proteus try use this to its advantage.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-02-04 22:24:08 UTC
Drake Doe wrote:
It actually makes sense, saying this ops armor tanks is like saying astronautics rigs op shield tanks

Armor tanks already benefit greatly from low sig compared to shield tanks.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#6 - 2013-02-04 22:26:49 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Drake Doe wrote:
It actually makes sense, saying this ops armor tanks is like saying astronautics rigs op shield tanks

Armor tanks already benefit greatly from low sig compared to shield tanks.

Like how shield tanks don't use armor plates and are therefore usually faster? This seems like the same system but with benefits for armor tanks as well.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#7 - 2013-02-05 00:26:09 UTC
The sig reduction magnitudes are probably too great.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#8 - 2013-02-05 00:28:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
There are implants for getting sig down (halos) - the combination of mindlinked skirmish from a loki, halos and x-instinct boosters means that you can already get some ships down to stupid almost gamebreakingly small sig sizes - sig reduction rigs on top of that would be a step too far.

There are 1-2 people who specialise in taking T2/faction cruisers, tricking them out with the above so that they have t1 cruiser like tanks, t2 cruiser like damage and damage projection and sig lower and mobility higher than many frigs even - in the right hands its a fiendish combination.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#9 - 2013-02-05 03:25:32 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
The sig reduction magnitudes are probably too great.


this...


I'd have to play with the numbers but I'd wager if not the unprobable ratio of the good ole days, it be so damn close to the difference would be real small.

This rig, the days of unprobable loki and tengu most likely would return or be so hard to find...it just be an argument in semantics.



PVP wise (above really jsut PVE most times) ....I'd -1 this because I'd hate to see all the damn whine threads about OP winmatar round 25. Gee thanks ccp, you fixed my harb but the armour cane got the same tweaks so they are still op. Winmatar by and larger runs speed and sig tank well enough as is now, this would jsut be more fun for them. Especially with the planned armour changes coming down the road. 800 plate harb vs 800 plate cane....one of these makes out better with 20% sig cut, less mass on the plates and all those other armour changes. Its not the harb, first hint is free lol.
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#10 - 2013-02-05 23:16:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Akara Ito
Rowells wrote:
Akara Ito wrote:
Would be OP for armor tanks, the penalty should be Capacitor (Buffer not recharge rate) or simply speed to make sure everybody is equally frelled.


It is a possibility, but my reasoning for it was that most armor ships are slow and bulky, so they would not be able to use the sig reduction to its full advantage. Though it might be possible for an armor based artillery ship but i think those are mostly avoided because of their lack of agility in comparison to shield artillery. But it would be interesting to see a heavy-tanked proteus try use this to its advantage.


The point is these rigs would give armor tanked ships a huge buff without any drawback.

A capacitor penalty would be a broad penalty that pretty much affects any ship out there.
A speed penalty would mean these rigs could be used for bunker style ships like armor hacs, possibly BCs and BS, without making certain ships like interceptors, Dramiels, etc even more untouchable.

Basically a signature bonus is kind of a huge thing for a lot of ships and should come with a broad penalty that affects every ship and makes people think before using these rigs rather than just get them because their drawbacks dont affect them in any way.
Drake Doe
88Th Tax Haven
#11 - 2013-02-05 23:19:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Doe
Akara Ito wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Akara Ito wrote:
Would be OP for armor tanks, the penalty should be Capacitor (Buffer not recharge rate) or simply speed to make sure everybody is equally frelled.


It is a possibility, but my reasoning for it was that most armor ships are slow and bulky, so they would not be able to use the sig reduction to its full advantage. Though it might be possible for an armor based artillery ship but i think those are mostly avoided because of their lack of agility in comparison to shield artillery. But it would be interesting to see a heavy-tanked proteus try use this to its advantage.


The point is these rigs would give armor tanked ships a huge buff without any drawback.

A capacitor penalty would be a broad penalty that pretty much affects any ship out there.
A speed penalty would mean these rigs could be used for bunker style ships like armor hacs, possibly BCs and BS, without making certain ships like interceptors, Dramiels, etc even more untouchable.

Basically a signature bonus is kind of a huge thing for a lot of ships and should come with a broad penalty that affects every ship and makes people think before using these rigs rather than just get them because their drawbacks dont affect them in any way.

You mean like shield tanks get for astronautics rigs?

Like armor plates affect mobility and are directly penalized by mods that increase mobility, the same should go for mods that lower signature radius. In both cases the ships are harder to hit than normal.

"The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! pops more corn" ---Evernub--
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#12 - 2013-02-06 06:37:18 UTC
I like the general concept of a Sig reduction rig, or possibly a module, but I don't know about the drawbacks. That's probably better decided on by the devs.

While were on a similar subject, how about a mass reduction rig? It would make AB and MWD boosts count for more.

Friends
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2013-02-06 11:25:51 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
I like the general concept of a Sig reduction rig, or possibly a module, but I don't know about the drawbacks. That's probably better decided on by the devs.

While were on a similar subject, how about a mass reduction rig? It would make AB and MWD boosts count for more.


The original polycarbons used to do this. They were too powerful and they got changed. It was one of the causes of the ~2008 nano-homogeneity, causing problems with blurring of the mobility limits of different ship classes.

The fundamental problem is that reducing mass indirectly increases agility and MWD/AB speed boost - but that's exactly what current polycarbons and nanofibres already do, directly. So you would have two different ways of altering the same parameters that don't stack with each other. That's very problematic to balance and sounds like bad game design - it's much better to have just a single way of altering parameters as sensitive as mobility.