Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Not going to lie. It does seem odd to me that I can put a Lg Shield Extender and/or a Lg Shield Booster on a Cruiser.

Then I guess BSes would all lose a fitting slot to compensate.

To clarify, the item names wouldn't be changed, although I could see this working too, since 'micro' is as dinky and useless as it sounds. When I say I would be bumping them up a bit, that's exactly what I meant; CCP could just move the names down.
So if you're fitting an 800 plate pre-patch, and the next day it comes up as a 400 plate, with the same fittings. Battleships and anything else using the old 1600 plate would register when they log in and bring up the fit window as an 800. 1600 plate would be a 'new' market item that would be on the market. 200s would register as 100mm plate and they can just get rid of 50mm completely, hence the 'bump' part that was mentioned for the thread.

To be fair, I like your idea too. I'm just not sure which would be easier to implement. I thought my way would be more consistent and balance out the line a little better.

Also, here's some stats for what the hypothetical battleship-sized mods would look like (fittings for micros, mediums and smalls would just be brought down from the next highest level):

Large Shield Extender 2:
6000 HP
400 PG
60 CPU

1600mm steel armor plate 2:
10000 HP
1000 PG
52 CPU

These rather nice, round numbers are based off of the progression I had estimated from small to large. If the fitting seems rather large to you, it should; battleships can fairly easily fit these, and cruisers/bcs that fit for big tank at the expense of offense (lol navy aug) free up a lowslot to do so. The same goes for shield ships, although to be quite honest it would be a bit more difficult for shield bc to do that since there's a bit less in the way of fitting room, despite assuming bonuses to PG reduction. With a little help, you could fit one of the new larges on something like a ferox and have it field a better tank than before. This would be very helpful since it only gets 5 mid slots, which frees it up a little for things like more hardeners or ewar.

This also has a bit of a side-benefit; it buffs combat battlecruisers a bit in the tank department if you fit it right, so you have the option of making them a bit more tankier than their cruiser-class counterparts. The ideal would be to have battlecruisers with passive resist bonuses getting around or a little over 100k ehp, and battleships in general having between 200-300k be the normal mark. Double-plated abby would get 230-250k if you factor for quad plates in the current model.

This being said, I don't see an issue with battleship fitting. A quad-plated abby that would be the equivalent of a double plate with the proposed model still has a good 4k of power grid leftover, which is fairly easy to fit whatever else you need in the mids, and accounting for lower skills. Generally it looks like it helps separate the weight classes cruiser and up a bit better; tankier battleships like the scorp navy could pull an estimated 500-600k ehp, bringing them a little closer to cap ships, keeping in-line with weight class, pricing and fit progression.

God help us all with the nutcase who decides to fit a million ehp plus proteus from this...

Wouldn't this end up doing truly disgusting things to pretty well everything with a resist bonus?

Rattlesnake. It's already a brick, this sort of thing would only add to it. Same with the marauders. Hell, even the caldari/amarr battleships with resist bonuses would benefit from this far, far more than anything else.

Yep, Caldari ships would be a lot better with the massive shield. The popularity of passive fits will rise again.

It would be a Huge boost too, as Dankia said, since the rate the shields charge is a percentage of the total shield hp, doubling each mod means not only more buffer, but much faster recharge. More resists with a lot more tank.

This is a kind of non-capital blanket buff

^this. Cap ships are fine as they are, since they can fit on the fly ( in a group) and have enough of a buffer already.
Xlarge extenders or 3200mm plates would be white elephants, unless the t3 cruisers can fit them, which is not something I'd like to see

Fair enough, but the PG reqs look quite high; a 3200 plate should be a clear progression up; 800s use a tad under half that of 1600s, so it would make more sense to me for it to be closer to 1k pg usage. The pg reqs for the XL extender also seem obnoxiously high. Aside from that, I do believe they should at least chop off the lowest level; micro extenders and 50mm plates are useless things.

Also, in response to other people's post. This is NOT game-breaking or a severe power creep; many, many shield ships double up on their extenders, specifically the larges. Quite a few armor boats double up on 1600s. This simply makes it so if they use the next highest tank mod, they don't have to do that, and can balance their slot fitting a little better.

For perspective: isn't it 'unbalanced' that you can tank a heavier cruiser or battlecruiser the same as a battleship? What would make more sense, keeping the current model or introducing higher-level mods to help move that gap a little higher? I see NO reason, absolutely none why this isn't a good idea, or how it would severely destablize ship balancing, ESPECIALLY factoring in ship pricing.

If someone can make a post with numbers that can directly prove that statement wrong with good theory to back it up, please do so; this forum is based around constructive feedback, and I would like to hear as much as I can about potential problems, so it has sufficient merit for CCP to pick up and work on should it still prove viable.

Capital ships generally rely on active tanking more, and they have armor mods that buff cap HP by percentages, not specific amounts, which is FAR more effective than a single buffer mod. The should stick to having them used for BC/BS if they add them.

You do raise a certain issue though; they should have shield modules (not just the rigs) that increase shield HP by a certain percentage, just as the regenerative membrane does for armor.

The possibility of misreading the OP is exactly why I qualified my assessment of the idea. So you don't get to be mad about that.



No, it doesn't particularly bother me that you can fit 1600 plates and LSEs on cruisers. It probably doesn't bother me because "cruisers with battleship tanks" is really only a t3 issue, rather than an issue with the plates. And even then its mostly just the proteus/legion with 1600 plates that really take it to the extreme. For most other ships you're either totally gimping your fit or you're still just a tanky hac, not a battleship. I think the penalties of fitting "oversized" mods are appropriate and make for interesting choices. Its true that using MSEs on cruisers is objectively stupid, and I DO agree there's some cognative dissonance here, but I think its just that, and not some indication of broken mechanics. I think if you got past the aesthetics of the issue, there isn't much else there. And the fact that fitting MSEs to cruisers is dumb just the players realizing that if you're going to buffer tank you may as well fit as much buffer into one slot as possible. LSEs and 1600 plates have been working for years, and since it isn't broken, there's nothing to fix.