These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Armor vs Shield Freighters - Layered Shielding Module

Author
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2014-06-11 22:12:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
I don't know how often the devs read the Ships & Modules forum but I feel that this idea deserves its own thread.

Basically a low slot module that does the same thing for shields that Layered Plating does for armor. Cross post from here:

Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
It is true there is a noticeable disparity in the tanking ability of armor vs shield freighters. I think that simply moving shield HP to armor HP would fix the issue but would remove diversity.

However a low slot version of "Layered Plating" for shields might help address the issue. These modules don't see much use since they are generally considered inferior to EANM's and standard armor plates and I doubt that a "layered shielding" module would see much use outside of freighters for the same reason.

But it might help address the issue by allowing shield freighters to simply add more raw HP than armor freighters can if the percentage bonus to shield HP was high enough.


My only concern is that if the percentage bonus to shield HP is too high it might do stupid things to shield capitals or other edge case setups.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#2 - 2014-06-11 22:24:33 UTC
How about you remove armor lowslots for freighters and JFs instead.

They are broken.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#3 - 2014-06-11 22:30:13 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
How about you remove armor lowslots for freighters and JFs instead.

They are broken.


They seem to be functioning just fine to me.Big smile

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2014-06-11 22:31:16 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
How about you remove armor lowslots for freighters and JFs instead.

They are broken.

Well I suppose going back to the old freighters and jump freighters is an option but as that would remove choices I doubt CCP will go for that. Even if the current choices aren't as well balanced as they could be.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2014-06-11 22:32:08 UTC
Llyona wrote:
They seem to be functioning just fine to me.Big smile

Indeed. In fact they seem to be functioning a bit too well.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2014-06-11 22:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
Give freighters the ability to fit shield power relays.

BAM, problem solved.

Edit: yea, I meant both JFs and freighters.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2014-06-11 22:34:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Give JFs the ability to fit shield power relays.

BAM, problem solved.

This is a very good idea. Why not also include T1 freighters?
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2014-06-11 22:43:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Gaijin Lanis
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Gaijin Lanis wrote:
Give JFs the ability to fit shield power relays.

BAM, problem solved.

This is a very good idea. Why not also include T1 freighters?

Yea, I meant both, I don't know why only wrote JFs.

But only give freighters and jump freighters a 90% CPU reduction bonus to the shield power relays, so a jump freighter will be able to fit more higher quality relays than a freighter.


Actually make it 87% reduced cpu requirements for shield power relays so one would need level 5 energy grid upgrades and level 5 CPU management to fit three meta 4 capacitor power relays to a jump freighter, but regular freighters would only be able to ever fit one, and they'd need two tech 2 or storyline coprocessors to jam that one relay in there.

Christ, if we keep this up, the JF role bonus list is going to be a mile long. But it should be, they're capitals for Fcuk's sake.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.

Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#9 - 2014-06-11 22:51:21 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Llyona wrote:
They seem to be functioning just fine to me.Big smile

Indeed. In fact they seem to be functioning a bit too well.


In what way?

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2014-06-11 22:54:39 UTC
Llyona wrote:
In what way?

300k EHP vs Void Obelisk that does not have to sacrifice any cargo space to get that tank. Also, slave implants with nano plantings.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-06-11 22:57:11 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Llyona wrote:
In what way?

300k EHP vs Void Obelisk that does not have to sacrifice any cargo space to get that tank. Also, slave implants with nano plantings.


At this point I'm going to have to shed a single tear for the plight of suicide gankers who have to adapt their tactics to different ships.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2014-06-11 23:02:00 UTC
Well, I don't feel there is anything wrong with the Obelisk being able to achieve that. I just feel that the Charon and the Fenrir are really being left out in the cold in terms of fitting choices.
Gaijin Lanis
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2014-06-11 23:12:27 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Well, I don't feel there is anything wrong with the Obelisk being able to achieve that. I just feel that the Charon and the Fenrir are really being left out in the cold in terms of fitting choices.


Either way, the main strength of shields is in regeneration and the main strength in armor is buffer. Adding straight copies of armor mods, except for shields would be... lazy.

The above was written and posted with nothing but love in my heart for all.

Gigan Amilupar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2014-06-11 23:17:20 UTC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the bulk of freighter EHP in structure? Thus the low slots were added to allow for choices between reinforced bulkheads, expanded cargoholds, nano's and the like. I would question why anyone would bother trying to do anything but hull tank their freighter, as well as question the need for the introduction of a new module to even out the difference between shield and armor tanked freighters when they weren't designed to do either. Even JFs, which get bonuses to tanking unlike regular freighters, either get a bonus to armor and hull or shield and hull. Clearly hull tanking is the bottom line here.
Sigras
Conglomo
#15 - 2014-06-11 23:36:56 UTC
Charon - largest, most hauling capacity
Fenrir - fastest, most agile
Obelisk - Most structure
Providence - Highest resists - most armor

Problem?
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2014-06-12 02:39:50 UTC
The issue is that on armor freighters nano plantings provide almost as much or even more tank than reinforced bulkheads do for no trade off in cargo space.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2014-06-12 04:32:00 UTC
The problem is not armor on its own, i mean obelisk vs charon difference is greater just by ~20k compared to bulkheads, ~70k on JF.

Lets not forget that for better or worse the shield freighters are aimed at cargo capacity and agility respectively.

The potential problems are slave implants and that it seems that every fitting tool has a different base armor value on the Ark, from 75 to 63, when the ingame window states 55.2 , this may not seem much, but it means the difference between a 1m ehp ark and a 850k ehp one.
In-Game Tools Please
Doomheim
#18 - 2014-06-12 06:31:01 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
The problem is not armor on its own, i mean obelisk vs charon difference is greater just by ~20k compared to bulkheads, ~70k on JF.

Lets not forget that for better or worse the shield freighters are aimed at cargo capacity and agility respectively.

The potential problems are slave implants and that it seems that every fitting tool has a different base armor value on the Ark, from 75 to 63, when the ingame window states 55.2 , this may not seem much, but it means the difference between a 1m ehp ark and a 850k ehp one.

Not bad points. The idea behind shield plating in low slots would be to buff the resists allowing for remote rep support. However you are correct about the Slave set making armor the obvious choice in such scenario every single time.



If shield plating in lows is added, for the sake of balance these modules should only be able to fit on a F/JF.

Also, not sure why people want shield power relays. You aren't going to gain much of anything from that. What you would want is Power Diagnostic Systems.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#19 - 2014-06-12 19:53:16 UTC
Remove ANPs since they are armor freighters only and give over 1 mil ehp to some JFs with no cargo downside.

You can still tank freighters to 350-400k and JFs to 700k ehp but in this case shield and armor freighters are equally good and carry the cargo penalty for using tank.

Armor platings are broken.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2014-06-12 19:57:20 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Remove ANPs since they are armor freighters only and give over 1 mil ehp to some JFs with no cargo downside.

You can still tank freighters to 350-400k and JFs to 700k ehp but in this case shield and armor freighters are equally good and carry the cargo penalty for using tank.

Armor platings are broken.

That seems a bit arbitrary. Nano plantings have legitimate uses on other ships when you are tight on CPU.
12Next page