These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Hull Tanking: compendium of knowledge, research......and propositions...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Silent Rambo
Orion Positronics
#21 - 2014-01-30 16:51:46 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Silent Rambo wrote:
-1

It wouldn't really add anything, and it really doesn't make sense. Way too much CCP work for nothing really new added to the game. Keep wishing.

I respect the idea that you want CCP to conserve their efforts for important ideas and fixes.

That said, I would rather they made that judgement, as they have in times past when it presented an obstacle.

For all we know, the coding from the original gallente concept is ready to go, with little or no effort needed.

As to it adding to the game, we can only speak for things we would use. Who is to say other players will not enjoy it?


Yeah some people might use it, but it isn't really an effective argument to put it in game. If they put a spaceship that looks like a pony and shot rainbows out its butt, I'm quite sure some people would use it and enjoy the hell out of it. Doesn't mean they should get to work on putting ponies in game. I just really don't see the reason to bring hull tanking as a thing back, it was removed for a reason. More choice because more seems a little silly, and it really doesn't add any more dimension or uniqueness on its own.

You really think someone would do that? Just log into EvE and tell lies?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#22 - 2014-01-30 17:08:09 UTC
Silent Rambo wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
As to it adding to the game, we can only speak for things we would use. Who is to say other players will not enjoy it?


Yeah some people might use it, but it isn't really an effective argument to put it in game. If they put a spaceship that looks like a pony and shot rainbows out its butt, I'm quite sure some people would use it and enjoy the hell out of it. Doesn't mean they should get to work on putting ponies in game. I just really don't see the reason to bring hull tanking as a thing back, it was removed for a reason. More choice because more seems a little silly, and it really doesn't add any more dimension or uniqueness on its own.

I agree, pony-butt rainbow shooters would be a goofy thing that I would not support.

That said, I think tanking is really popular for most players, and adding a new option for that could be something that enhances the game.

I think I saw the pony-butt rainbow shooter in a different game video already. Maybe copying that for EVE is a bad Idea, I dunno....

Video HERE

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#23 - 2014-01-30 17:21:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Silivar Karkun
we have basic buffer hull anyways......is because of the lack of more modules related to it and the bad application of active hull reppers that hull tanking isnt avaliable as a valid doctrine in the game.

yeah CCP is the judge in this anyways, but it would be a cool feature to have.

also about lack of bringing something new:

-you could plan which resistances have at the start, since the hull is 0/0/0/0 you would decide how you want to distribute the resistances via modules, along with the traditional damage control

-its an aditional tanking doctrine, no ship has the bonuses for it, but you can use it with either shield ships or armor ships

-gallente would be unique and boss in this by having more structure HP than the other races
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#24 - 2014-01-30 18:18:07 UTC
deleted some early test content that was taking space in the thread as wall of texts......OP edited too.....
Chaotix Morwen
Church Of BDSM
#25 - 2014-01-31 19:04:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Chaotix Morwen
In the context of ship construction this wouldnt make much sense, i mean why would you be putting armor plating and advanced resistance boosting machines on the interior of a ship? Logically youd be better off placing it on the outside to enhance the already present armor instead of wasting (limited) internal space.

And as Nikk Narrel stated there would be no buffer left for those few emergency seconds when you ought to be praying for ransom, so youve got a form of tanking with the same disadvantages of armor tanking, is less effective and leaves you with no backup...call me mad, but id dare say youll never find a player who knows what theyre doing flying a structure tanker (with the exception of for luls)
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#26 - 2014-01-31 19:35:02 UTC
Here's a wild thought.

I was working backwards on this, wondering to myself how to make hull tanking a practical alternative.

Here is what I came up with.

For the large category:
An armor repper II repairs 920hp over a 15 second cycle. (61 per second)
A shield booster II repairs 276hp over a 4 second cycle. (69 per second)
A hull repairer II repairs 120hp over a 24 second cycle. (5 per second)

Have the hull repairing function instead as a subset of a bigger picture.

Create a single module, make it a high slot item.

For each 5 second cycle, it will repair 150 each to armor, shield, and hull.

This equates out to each section recovering 30hp per second.

Shields will be eaten through, armor will be chewed through as well. The system never really comes into it's own until the hull starts absorbing damage.
At that point, it is restoring 450 total for each 5 second cycle, or a total of 90hp per second.
(Note: excess from any section is lost, not converted to other types which may be useful)

That sounds great, until you consider the following.

You either tank the armor resistances, or that 150 per cycle is chewed by it's absence.
Same with shield and hull, though a DCU2 on the hull does help.
So, you lose a high slot to the module, and all the slots needed to tank all three zones adequately, in return for one massive active tank.

And, don't forget, that a shield boost amp II offers 36% increase, bringing shield recovery up to 204 per cycle.
(per second roughly increased to 40)

Of course, ultratanking your ship this way, it won't leave as much for DPS or utility, but that's a cost to bear.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#27 - 2014-01-31 20:00:29 UTC
id love to see faction and deadspace and officer Damage controls..

remote hull and local hull reppers to be in line with armor reppers and an ancillary hull repper, possably 20% higher for all hull rep moduals since if Hull gets to 0 your screwed as opposed to armor or shield where you have a little more buffer/layers befor you go BANG

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#28 - 2014-01-31 22:09:46 UTC
it actually has to be better repping than both armor reppers and shield boosters, because of the long cycle, and relative cheap requirements, it would be the repping module with the longest cycle, but the most repping amount to compensate...

yeah more meta variations for damage controls would be welcomed but we would have to find a balance for them...this would mean nerfin the current damage control modules a bit
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#29 - 2014-01-31 22:32:50 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here's a wild thought.

I was working backwards on this, wondering to myself how to make hull tanking a practical alternative.

Here is what I came up with.

For the large category:
An armor repper II repairs 920hp over a 15 second cycle. (61 per second)
A shield booster II repairs 276hp over a 4 second cycle. (69 per second)
A hull repairer II repairs 120hp over a 24 second cycle. (5 per second)

Have the hull repairing function instead as a subset of a bigger picture.

Create a single module, make it a high slot item.

For each 5 second cycle, it will repair 150 each to armor, shield, and hull.

This equates out to each section recovering 30hp per second.

Shields will be eaten through, armor will be chewed through as well. The system never really comes into it's own until the hull starts absorbing damage.
At that point, it is restoring 450 total for each 5 second cycle, or a total of 90hp per second.
(Note: excess from any section is lost, not converted to other types which may be useful)

That sounds great, until you consider the following.

You either tank the armor resistances, or that 150 per cycle is chewed by it's absence.
Same with shield and hull, though a DCU2 on the hull does help.
So, you lose a high slot to the module, and all the slots needed to tank all three zones adequately, in return for one massive active tank.

And, don't forget, that a shield boost amp II offers 36% increase, bringing shield recovery up to 204 per cycle.
(per second roughly increased to 40)

Of course, ultratanking your ship this way, it won't leave as much for DPS or utility, but that's a cost to bear.


i like the idea but it sounds too complicated and still depends on the use of armor and shield modules. the idea is to make hull tanking an independant thing...with its own pros and cons...
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#30 - 2014-01-31 23:22:49 UTC
Silivar Karkun wrote:
i like the idea but it sounds too complicated and still depends on the use of armor and shield modules. the idea is to make hull tanking an independant thing...with its own pros and cons...

That's fair enough.

My reasoning was that the lack of any buffer supporting the hull tank, as shield and armor fall back onto hull as a buffer, could be flipped.

The module could potentially be an amazing active tank, but to fully make use of it the ship would need to be recovering damage on all three levels.

The only other option I was able to consider, would be to give it a LONG cycle time, but a huge return.

For a large hull repper II, something like this:

A hull repairer II repairs 120hp over a 24 second cycle. (5 per second)
changed to
6,000hp over a 60 second cycle (100 per second average)

For a battleship, like a Domi, that is less than it's 8,500 max base, but for a Typhoon, that is it's entire structure.

It also means that a high DPS opponent needs to burn down the structure in 60 seconds, or be frustrated.
If that cycle doesn't finish in time, however, boom.

That first cycle can obviously be preemptively started, before the hull starts taking damage, on the idea that it will have taken serious enough hits to make the recovery at that point worth the timing.

Gambling on that hull...

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#31 - 2014-02-01 00:45:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Silivar Karkun
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Silivar Karkun wrote:
i like the idea but it sounds too complicated and still depends on the use of armor and shield modules. the idea is to make hull tanking an independant thing...with its own pros and cons...

That's fair enough.

My reasoning was that the lack of any buffer supporting the hull tank, as shield and armor fall back onto hull as a buffer, could be flipped.

The module could potentially be an amazing active tank, but to fully make use of it the ship would need to be recovering damage on all three levels.

The only other option I was able to consider, would be to give it a LONG cycle time, but a huge return.

For a large hull repper II, something like this:

A hull repairer II repairs 120hp over a 24 second cycle. (5 per second)
changed to
6,000hp over a 60 second cycle (100 per second average)

For a battleship, like a Domi, that is less than it's 8,500 max base, but for a Typhoon, that is it's entire structure.

It also means that a high DPS opponent needs to burn down the structure in 60 seconds, or be frustrated.
If that cycle doesn't finish in time, however, boom.

That first cycle can obviously be preemptively started, before the hull starts taking damage, on the idea that it will have taken serious enough hits to make the recovery at that point worth the timing.

Gambling on that hull...


Reinforced Bulkheads would like to have a word with you man.....thats one of the base information about hull tanking, buffer hull would be done with reinforced bulkheads.....and there would be an skill that reduces its drawbacks....

24 seconds should be the norm and be reduced to its 18 seconds as currently, still a long cycle, it should repp better than an armor repper of course, but we dont need to get to those extremes.

the idea of the active hull tanking is to use midslots while securing lowslots for damage and other extra modules. active hull modules would be based for midslots, but there would be buffer versions that use lowslots......

buffer hull tanking is revolved around reinforced bulkheads and resistance modules....

right now i havent had time to reorganize all the feedback in the post but in order to make this more appealing i need to separate how will active and passive hull tanking work.

A. active hull == similar to active armor and active shield

B. passive hull == similar to passive shield (it would add passive repair systems equivalent to passive shield recharge)
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#32 - 2014-02-01 18:18:26 UTC
please refer to this new thread about the proposition: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4181542#post4181542
Previous page12