These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Passive and Active hardeners
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Preying Reaper
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2013-04-22 10:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Preying Reaper
I have always wondered why shields were always strictly mid slots and armor only low slots when I have felt that passive modules should go on lows and actives on mids.

Yes thats right could you imagine active armor hardeners on your mid slots and passive shield hardeners on your lows and a supertanked beast at the cost of more firepower.

would the tank be too much? i would think maybe some tweaking may fix it, but It may breathe more life into passive shield hardeners and active armor hardeners, I would like to see what people think.

Thank You.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#2 - 2013-04-22 11:26:52 UTC
Preying Reaper wrote:
Yes thats right could you imagine active armor hardeners on your mid slots and passive shield hardeners on your lows and a supertanked beast at the cost of more firepower..



how so?


the reason some armour tankers shield tank is to get lows back for damage/rof mods and TE. I am looking at mach for example. I to go back to armour tank could take active resists and mid slt them, and I got the lows for repper, eanm gyro and TE to my hearts content. The 2 active resists ofc being what the repper and eanm replaced in lows.

In this way mach gets a much stronger tank (stronger than its ghetto shield tank version at any rate) and still keeps it pain giving levels high.


i'd do the same to vindi tbh.

these chosen for the obvious reason they are usually pimped jsut a bit. DS and faction gear has a magical ability to free up some PG and CPU.

I am sure some t1 and t2 armour bs' would fare almost as well under this setup.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2013-04-22 16:08:14 UTC
Preying Reaper wrote:
I have always wondered why shields were always strictly mid slots and armor only low slots when I have felt that passive modules should go on lows and actives on mids.

Yes thats right could you imagine active armor hardeners on your mid slots and passive shield hardeners on your lows and a supertanked beast at the cost of more firepower.

would the tank be too much? i would think maybe some tweaking may fix it, but It may breathe more life into passive shield hardeners and active armor hardeners, I would like to see what people think.

Thank You.



But the majority of armour ships don't have anything like enough midslots for thier tank. Why nerf them?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#4 - 2013-04-22 19:07:52 UTC
Preying Reaper wrote:
I have always wondered why shields were always strictly mid slots and armor only low slots when I have felt that passive modules should go on lows and actives on mids.

Yes thats right could you imagine active armor hardeners on your mid slots and passive shield hardeners on your lows and a supertanked beast at the cost of more firepower.

would the tank be too much? i would think maybe some tweaking may fix it, but It may breathe more life into passive shield hardeners and active armor hardeners, I would like to see what people think.

Thank You.


With 90% of Shield tanking mods in the mids, shields get to use the lows for speed and damage but sacrifice tank to fit EWAR.
With 90+% of Armor tanking mods in the lows, armor tanks sacrifice damage & speed, but utilize a bunch of EWAR mods to offset their disadvantages.

Your change, where EWAR is in the mids still, really through's the entire system out of balance, as ships are currently not balanced around this "placement" of modules. With this change, CCP would have to rebalance every ship in the game, again.

TBH, I don't see how this will benefit the game in general. I fear this might actually homogenize the tanking systems, and I'm just don't think this is a path for CCP to pursue.
PavlikX
Nocte Vigilo
Fraternity.
#5 - 2013-04-22 20:01:31 UTC  |  Edited by: PavlikX
I guess that this proposal is too radical. Hardly it will be implemented.
Rebalancing, or better say, finding correct solution in armor/shield competiton is an exact course.
Preying Reaper
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2013-04-22 20:02:50 UTC
Thank you for your replys,

In response I believe that a change like this would open up more fitting options for pilots and would throw the current fitting meta game out the window of course. However could you imagine a shield tanked phoon with ewar and a tackle, scary huh!

As for balancing i think that ships Cpu and powergrid requirements for fittings would keep it from being too much and would require some tweaks. The Hardest thing i think would be the code how the modules work although i know nothing i think that may hold up somthing like this most of all.

I feel this would be a good change and would make the game more adaptable and fun.
Preying Reaper
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2013-04-22 20:25:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Preying Reaper
Danika Princip wrote:



But the majority of armour ships don't have anything like enough midslots for thier tank. Why nerf them?


Correct me if im wrong but a majority of armor ships use the passive Energized Nano membranes i hardly ever outside of PVE see armor ships using active tanks and the same for shield most of the time passive shield modules arnt viable for fleet or solo pvp but i may be wrong.

this change would give the option for an armor ship to switch a low slot for a mid slot hardener and put anything like a damage mod or nano fo speed it open up options so i dont see it as a nerf.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2013-04-22 20:50:54 UTC
Preying Reaper wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:



But the majority of armour ships don't have anything like enough midslots for thier tank. Why nerf them?


Correct me if im wrong but a majority of armor ships use the passive Energized Nano membranes i hardly ever outside of PVE see armor ships using active tanks and the same for shield most of the time passive shield modules arnt viable for fleet or solo pvp but i may be wrong.

this change would give the option for an armor ship to switch a low slot for a mid slot hardener and put anything like a damage mod or nano fo speed it open up options so i dont see it as a nerf.



In my experiance, most armour ships either use a mix, EANM or two, with active hardeners to plug the holes, or go straight active hardeners. If the actives switch to midslots, the tanks will weaken, there will be little or no room for tackle and cap boosters, let alone ewar or tracking computers. They simply do not have the slots to support the tank.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2013-04-24 01:51:22 UTC
It's a fairly balanced system already, as others have stated before me here. The problem with your idea is that each tank can be fit into both mids and lows, allowing a person to fit too much tank altogether. Perhaps the real confusion is in calling them "low power slots" when sometimes they run very high-energy modules, like armor repairers. But I think that's explained through the use of nanites anyway.

I think any shield modules in low slots (or armor modules in mid slots) should be weak and/or come with a drawback. Take for instance the shield power relay and capacitor power relay. Both can help shield tanking but come at a cost. The only unbalance here is that armor doesn't ave anything like that for the mids.

I propose a module similar to and exclusive with the damage control that can be fit in a mid slot, and a nanite power relay which goes in a mid slot and generates more capacitor than a cap recharger but at the cost of reduced armor repair.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."