These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

So i think you should be abel to tank better the more damage you get
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Soshala Garemoko
Moar Tears Industrial Consortium Ltd.
#1 - 2014-02-25 08:42:31 UTC
So sig radius is a thing when you take damamge, and addind more shields makes your sig bigger and you can take more damamge because of it. So i think that when you lose shields from hit points from damamge, you should also lose sig so that you can take a bit less damamge, since you have less shields. For armor tanking it always makes you slow and loose agillity, so as people lose armor they could get faster and move better to avoid more damamge.

Maybe it could even be a thing like shield tanking when you loose so much of your ship that you dont take anymore damamge from goiong too fast and having no sig left!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2014-02-25 08:45:31 UTC
I think this is actually a good idea that could use a little discussion, but you brought it up in the wrong forum, if not the wrong thread. There is a "little things" thread here somewhere that you could add this to, but for the sake of discussion, you might wanna put this in Features and Ideas instead of General Discussion.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Aih-Li Tahn
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-02-25 08:52:06 UTC
cant u see how many thing this would just BREAK? do u even PVP? i mean cmon dude u cant make armor ships fast, its just removing all balance!!!
Dreadchain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-02-25 09:05:07 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I think this is actually a good idea that could use a little discussion, but you brought it up in the wrong forum, if not the wrong thread. There is a "little things" thread here somewhere that you could add this to, but for the sake of discussion, you might wanna put this in Features and Ideas instead of General Discussion.


Major gameplay changes are hardly a "little thing". But definitely belongs in F&I.

That said, not the worst idea I've heard, but I'm not sure how you'd go around balancing this but it'd certainly make active tanking more compelling.

www.minerbumping.com
Victor Andall
#5 - 2014-02-25 09:08:20 UTC
My Damage Control II module seems to do exactly this.

How about fitting your ship more competently?

I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?

19.08.2014 - Dinsdale gets slammed by CCP Falcon. Never forget.
Dreadchain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-02-25 09:13:52 UTC
Victor Andall wrote:
My Damage Control II module seems to do exactly this.

How about fitting your ship more competently?


If your DC changes your signature radius, I'm not sure you're fitting the correct module.

www.minerbumping.com
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#7 - 2014-02-25 09:23:48 UTC
Shooting thru holes comes to mind. :D

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#8 - 2014-02-25 09:24:23 UTC
Let's remove all downsides to fitting certain types of defenses, guys!!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-02-25 09:26:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Dreadchain wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
I think this is actually a good idea that could use a little discussion, but you brought it up in the wrong forum, if not the wrong thread. There is a "little things" thread here somewhere that you could add this to, but for the sake of discussion, you might wanna put this in Features and Ideas instead of General Discussion.


Major gameplay changes are hardly a "little thing". But definitely belongs in F&I.

That said, not the worst idea I've heard, but I'm not sure how you'd go around balancing this but it'd certainly make active tanking more compelling.


If you think about it, it's rather self-balancing. Why, for example, does a ship with no shields left still have a massive sig radius? Why does a ship with no armour left still lumber about like it's completely weighed down by the stuff? It actually makes sense to me.

These drawbacks, higher sig radius and slower speeds, are the result of adding HP to your ship. As it gets stripped, and that extra HP disappears, why shouldn't the drawback be reduced? It's not like it's going to have a huge impact - unless you are specifically speed and sig tanking, that little extra speed or lower sig, if your primary tank is gone, isn't going to have that much of an impact in any case.

Tell me I'm wrong, if I am, of course, but please, demonstrate how much difference it's going to make. Otherwise, I'm two thumbs up for this idea.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#10 - 2014-02-25 09:27:31 UTC
Soshala Garemoko wrote:
Maybe it could even be a thing like shield tanking when you loose so much of your ship that you dont take anymore damamge from goiong too fast and having no sig left!


So wrecks should be best tanking and fastest objects in Eve universe :)

Well, there is something interesting in a concept that buffer tank lost doesn't add its penalties anymore although I don't think it could be implemented so easily. Also theoretically if you are in structure your ship might be "lighter" than with full plates but it is also full of holes and ship efficiency shouldn't go up the closer you get to wreck state.

Oh, and being connected to basically core mechanics this idea is definitely not "little things" material. Regular F&I so it could be properly ignored and forgotten.

Invalid signature format
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-02-25 09:28:32 UTC
Loraine Gess wrote:
Let's remove all downsides to fitting certain types of defenses, guys!!


That's not what the OP is saying. I know his delivery wasn't in the best english, but I understood it, so I'll explain it.

If you are shield tanking, it increases your sig radius as a drawback to the extra HP. Why then do you still have that extra sig radius if your shields have been stripped? Likewise, adding armour slows you down. Why are you still slowed down if the weight of that armour is gone?

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Mascha Tzash
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2014-02-25 10:52:00 UTC
I would recomend moving this thread to F&I.
The idea is not completely bad but would surely need some refining.
Doireen Kaundur
Doomheim
#13 - 2014-02-25 11:27:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Doireen Kaundur
Quote:
So sig radius is a thing when you take damamge, and addind more shields makes your sig bigger and you can take more damamge because of it. So i think that when you lose shields from hit points from damamge, you should also lose sig so that you can take a bit less damamge, since you have less shields. For armor tanking it always makes you slow and loose agillity, so as people lose armor they could


I always felt that the sig radius was due to the functioning module exisiting in your ship, not for what the module does.

If you are down to zero shields, the module is still functioning, so your sig radius should remain the same.

Look at it this way. If a light house puts out a certain amount of power, it is stil the same regardless of the amount of fog obscuring the light that day.

_[center]For your Freighter **sized shipping needs, contact _[u]Lord Chanlin[/u].** _ Fast, affordable, reliable service._

https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Lord%20Chanlin[/center]
Victor Andall
#14 - 2014-02-25 12:02:39 UTC
Ok, seeing how many people agree with a bad idea...

Posting in stealth nerf PVP thread.

I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?

19.08.2014 - Dinsdale gets slammed by CCP Falcon. Never forget.
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#15 - 2014-02-25 13:15:44 UTC
Victor Andall wrote:
Ok, seeing how many people agree with a bad idea...

Posting in stealth nerf PVP thread.

Whilst I don't agree with the OP's suggestion for various reasons I would like to know how you consider it to be a stealth nerf PVP thread?

If it applies to everyone how is it nerfing PVP? I'm geninely interested in your logic here.
Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#16 - 2014-02-25 13:25:08 UTC
Soshala Garemoko wrote:
So sig radius is a thing when you take damamge, and addind more shields makes your sig bigger and you can take more damamge because of it. So i think that when you lose shields from hit points from damamge, you should also lose sig so that you can take a bit less damamge, since you have less shields. For armor tanking it always makes you slow and loose agillity, so as people lose armor they could get faster and move better to avoid more damamge.

Maybe it could even be a thing like shield tanking when you loose so much of your ship that you dont take anymore damamge from goiong too fast and having no sig left!


I'm impressed by the consistent use of the word "damamge".

As for the idea itself, it doesn't necessarily make sense to consider that when your shields are down it's just like you had no shield extenders fitted. The sig radius increase could be generated by the module itself whether you have shields up or not. Same goes for armor, when your armor is down your plates are still there, they're just broken deadweight. If there were completely gone you wouldn't be able to repair them. Simple logic doesn't seem like a good enough argument to implement this change imo.
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-02-25 13:32:22 UTC
Certainly one of those ideas which do make sense, but.. what is the need for it? Which problem would it solve?
Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#18 - 2014-02-25 16:00:49 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Loraine Gess wrote:
Let's remove all downsides to fitting certain types of defenses, guys!!


That's not what the OP is saying. I know his delivery wasn't in the best english, but I understood it, so I'll explain it.

If you are shield tanking, it increases your sig radius as a drawback to the extra HP. Why then do you still have that extra sig radius if your shields have been stripped? Likewise, adding armour slows you down. Why are you still slowed down if the weight of that armour is gone?




Because that's the tradeoff for having the extra buffer. It would be a little ridiculous if modules provided no penalties when you weren't using them....
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#19 - 2014-02-25 16:20:42 UTC
A very interesting concept, and I like it - but I don't think it's doable without basically rewriting ship mechanics and such.... not going to happen any time soon, it would also provide bonuses to active tanking in low shield/armour

and for the record, the extra sig that comes with shield, I always though to come from the shield generators/emitters, and the extra mass from armour to come partially from the plates themselves, but also the mounts. I may be wrong on that.

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2014-02-25 16:29:01 UTC
I would think that the sig increase comes from the emitter and generated energy together, the output of energy doesn't change just because any stored energy has been burnt away, as for armour it gets lots of holes in it rather than being vaporized otherwise how could it be repaired?
12Next page