These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[New Module] Mid-slot Damage control - Auto-regenerator
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-04-26 22:18:22 UTC
This module would be similar in practice to a damage control module but would fit in a medium power slot. It would have a long cycle time and low capacitor cost. Rather than grant resistances across the board, it would instead tally up all damage received during its cycle, and at the end of the cycle some of that would be repaired. The percentage amount would be greater than the resist bonus of a Damage Control, because this module offers less immediate protection and does not assist other repair effects. Obviously, it would be mutually exclusive with the low-slot Damage Control.

tech 1:
Shield regen: 12.5% of damage taken
Armor regen: 17.5% of damage taken
Hull regen: 60% of damage taken

tech 2:
Shield regen: 17.5% of damage taken
Armor regen: 22.5% of damage taken
Hull regen: 70% of damage taken

Once again, this would be exclusive with the Damage Control module. You could not fit both to a ship, you have to pick one of the two. The Damage Auto-regenerator would potentially offer a greater benefit to a strong buffer tank than would a Damage Control. This can be useful to armor tanks which tend to have a stronger buffer than shield tanks. But the biggest reason people would use this module is because many fits don't have room in the low slots for a Damage Control.

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."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2013-04-27 20:50:16 UTC
bump because armor tanks need love (and damage control in a mid slot)

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."
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#3 - 2013-04-27 20:59:38 UTC
DC still will be better for the same reason that +resistance% bonus on hulls is better than active repair bonus: it increases buffer and affects remote and local repairs.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2013-04-27 23:19:56 UTC
That's why repair bonuses should be higher. The whole problem is that they aren't.

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."
Tsobai Hashimoto
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2013-04-27 23:29:26 UTC
useless for shield tanks....i'm not replacing my prop, tackle or invuln for this

i'd rather see it as a rig, but weaker

honestly the dc2 should have been a rig and saved the low for normal fittings
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-04-28 00:23:24 UTC
Titans will never die again.Big smile
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2013-05-01 08:57:05 UTC
sabre906 wrote:
Titans will never die again.Big smile
Titans should already have to fit only capital modules. There should be capital hardeners and all that stuff.

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."
Siobhan MacLeary
Doomheim
#8 - 2013-05-01 10:16:39 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This module would be similar in practice to a damage control module but would fit in a medium power slot. It would have a long cycle time and low capacitor cost. Rather than grant resistances across the board, it would instead tally up all damage received during its cycle, and at the end of the cycle some of that would be repaired. The percentage amount would be greater than the resist bonus of a Damage Control, because this module offers less immediate protection and does not assist other repair effects. Obviously, it would be mutually exclusive with the low-slot Damage Control.

tech 1:
Shield regen: 12.5% of damage taken
Armor regen: 17.5% of damage taken
Hull regen: 60% of damage taken

tech 2:
Shield regen: 17.5% of damage taken
Armor regen: 22.5% of damage taken
Hull regen: 70% of damage taken

Once again, this would be exclusive with the Damage Control module. You could not fit both to a ship, you have to pick one of the two. The Damage Auto-regenerator would potentially offer a greater benefit to a strong buffer tank than would a Damage Control. This can be useful to armor tanks which tend to have a stronger buffer than shield tanks. But the biggest reason people would use this module is because many fits don't have room in the low slots for a Damage Control.


Soooo...a fancy mid-slot armor repairer?

I don't see what purpose this module serves.

“Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.” - CCP Soundwave
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#9 - 2013-05-01 10:49:45 UTC
Siobhan MacLeary wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
This module would be similar in practice to a damage control module but would fit in a medium power slot. It would have a long cycle time and low capacitor cost. Rather than grant resistances across the board, it would instead tally up all damage received during its cycle, and at the end of the cycle some of that would be repaired. The percentage amount would be greater than the resist bonus of a Damage Control, because this module offers less immediate protection and does not assist other repair effects. Obviously, it would be mutually exclusive with the low-slot Damage Control.

tech 1:
Shield regen: 12.5% of damage taken
Armor regen: 17.5% of damage taken
Hull regen: 60% of damage taken

tech 2:
Shield regen: 17.5% of damage taken
Armor regen: 22.5% of damage taken
Hull regen: 70% of damage taken

Once again, this would be exclusive with the Damage Control module. You could not fit both to a ship, you have to pick one of the two. The Damage Auto-regenerator would potentially offer a greater benefit to a strong buffer tank than would a Damage Control. This can be useful to armor tanks which tend to have a stronger buffer than shield tanks. But the biggest reason people would use this module is because many fits don't have room in the low slots for a Damage Control.


Soooo...a fancy mid-slot armor repairer?

I don't see what purpose this module serves.


It's not about tanking or anything, this module is obviously an aid for missioning battleships that need another low for more dps! So it is more like 1.5 midslot-DCUs without stacking penalty. I'd mount this to a golem, to have that extratank without sacrificing a fourth CN BCU.