These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Low Armor Hp = Lower Mass.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Brutus Le'montac
#1 - 2014-08-11 05:21:22 UTC
hey all.

I have been toying around with an idea that might add just that little more pssssshhhh to armor tanking.

right now when you add a plate to your ship, your mass goes up, and your speed goes slightly down.
now how about this:

full armor = lower speed and higher mass.
missing armor HP = higher speed and lower mass.

basicly every % of armor hp lowers speed with a specific amount and adds mass, every % missing armor HP reverses the lower speed and more mass.

this means that when you are for example fighting and you are loosing armor HP, you get more speed, increasing your chance of survival.

if you are living in wormholes ( hot topic right now XD) you can jump through a wormhole on the edge of collapsing where others can not, because of your lower mass.

ofcourse if you repair your armor, you loose the gained advantage from missing armor HP.

now for shield tankers i can not really come up with an idea, however a shield tanked ship can ofcourse recieve the same increase of speed.
maybe lower sig radius based on shield HP for shield tanking ships?

let me know if this is something that could work out or not.just an idea i have been toying with.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2014-08-11 05:30:02 UTC
This is... an interesting idea.

I guess my only concern would be people purposefully shooting friendlies before combat so that they can kite better.

How did you Veterans start?
James Nikolas Tesla
Tesla Holdings
#3 - 2014-08-11 05:32:57 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
This is... an interesting idea.

I guess my only concern would be people purposefully shooting friendlies before combat so that they can kite better.

And that is the beauty of EVE.

CODE is just a bunch of pirates; smart, organized pirates. It doesn't help to rage at them because that is exactly what they want. Dust yourself off and get back on your feet, you don't even have to talk to them.
Sigras
Conglomo
#4 - 2014-08-11 06:10:53 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
This is... an interesting idea.

I guess my only concern would be people purposefully shooting friendlies before combat so that they can kite better.

I dont see a problem with that... If they wanted less HP and more speed they could always just have fit a smaller plate, or a nanofiber instead of a plate etc.
Pelorios
Absolute Order XVI
Absolute Honor
#5 - 2014-08-11 06:21:18 UTC

E=m*v^2 ( "v" not "c" - I am a fan of 'about-time-we-break-light-speed-like-we-broke-sound-speed')

sure. The energy of the armor repairer is then converted to mass and you loose speed again.

Theoretically its fine.
Kuroi Aurgnet
Cry Of Death
#6 - 2014-08-11 06:33:48 UTC
This... is actually really cool. You're going to have people who hate it because it might allow their prey to escape and today I learned that people get more bitter than that than actual broken mechanics (well I mean I always knew but it was enforced more, today). Anyhow, on the topic at hand, I like this. And the sig radius thing for the shields, too. The only thing is this would hurt missiles which are already in a bad state in so many ways, but maybe this would make CCP actually look at missiles.....

In any case I like this idea a lot. It even enforces the idea of minmatar being the fastest. They are junk ships with little real armor after all ;D

Just that hint of cynicism the world needs now and then.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2014-08-11 06:38:28 UTC
cool if you could start ditching cargo to do the same.

"****, he's gaining on us! Dump the dancers and the Rum!"
"The rum, sir??"
"Yes, the rum!"
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#8 - 2014-08-11 07:45:50 UTC
i would imagine the server having too check this over and over would do the server in somewhat

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#9 - 2014-08-11 14:44:37 UTC
Sorry, this doesn't really make any sense. You are coming from the lore where it makes the least amount of sense. If you were to implement this you would also have to consider dynamic sig radius, and all other penalties shigting modules/rigs, and armor regarding mass makes the least amoun t of sense. Shields vs Sig radius the most - but you didn't start there.

All or nothing.

-1 till then.
Brutus Le'montac
#10 - 2014-08-11 14:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Brutus Le'montac
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Sorry, this doesn't really make any sense. You are coming from the lore where it makes the least amount of sense. If you were to implement this you would also have to consider dynamic sig radius, and all other penalties shigting modules/rigs, and armor regarding mass makes the least amoun t of sense. Shields vs Sig radius the most - but you didn't start there.

All or nothing.

-1 till then.


i'm not " coming from the lore" in any way.

where i got this idea from is a game called space engineers, basicly minecraft in space.
depending on what armor you use ( heavy or normal, comparable to a 200mm vs 1600mm plate) your ship gets an amount of mass.
when a part of your ship breaks off, your mass lowers. increasing your speed and turn radius.

now, in my eyes, this is a very normal straight forwarded principle, and i fail to see where it comes from the lore, maybe you can point that out for me?

also, your comment about rigs/modules dont go up.

if you destroy a rig ( which is comparable to losing armor hp ) you free up the slot again, if you place a new rig, you loose the free slot and calibration points.

if you use a module it uses capacitor ( if active) if you disable the module it doesnt use capacitor..... in my eyes all the same more or less.....


also armor is directly related to mass and speed, so maybe i'm not the smartest around but i dont see why it is not related, so please, enlighten me.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
Brutus Le'montac
#11 - 2014-08-11 15:05:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Brutus Le'montac
Harvey James wrote:
i would imagine the server having too check this over and over would do the server in somewhat



i geuss those calculations are not gonna impact the servers speed load or bandwith anymore then capacitor recharge/use and capacitor chains already do.the calculations are somewhat the same.

also, if ccp's servers can not handle this minor amount of extra calculations, then there is something wrong with their servers.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
Brutus Le'montac
#12 - 2014-08-11 15:06:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Brutus Le'montac
Rowells wrote:
cool if you could start ditching cargo to do the same.

"****, he's gaining on us! Dump the dancers and the Rum!"
"The rum, sir??"
"Yes, the rum!"




But why is the rum gone?

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-08-11 15:14:43 UTC
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
hey all.

I have been toying around with an idea that might add just that little more pssssshhhh to armor tanking.

right now when you add a plate to your ship, your mass goes up, and your speed goes slightly down.
now how about this:

full armor = lower speed and higher mass.
missing armor HP = higher speed and lower mass.

basicly every % of armor hp lowers speed with a specific amount and adds mass, every % missing armor HP reverses the lower speed and more mass.

this means that when you are for example fighting and you are loosing armor HP, you get more speed, increasing your chance of survival.

if you are living in wormholes ( hot topic right now XD) you can jump through a wormhole on the edge of collapsing where others can not, because of your lower mass.

ofcourse if you repair your armor, you loose the gained advantage from missing armor HP.

now for shield tankers i can not really come up with an idea, however a shield tanked ship can ofcourse recieve the same increase of speed.
maybe lower sig radius based on shield HP for shield tanking ships?

let me know if this is something that could work out or not.just an idea i have been toying with.


The drawback of your fit is not supposed to go away like that. You made a choice when you fitted that plate. If you wanted to go fast, you should of fitted that slot differently.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#14 - 2014-08-11 15:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
i'm not " coming from the lore" in any way

where i got this idea from is a game called space engineers, basicly minecraft in space.
depending on what armor you use ( heavy or normal, comparable to a 200mm vs 1600mm plate) your ship gets an amount of mass.
when a part of your ship breaks off, your mass lowers. increasing your speed and turn radius.

now, in my eyes, this is a very normal straight forwarded principle, and i fail to see where it comes from the lore, maybe you can point that out for me?

Sorry I have to explain this to you, but if you reduce mass by losing armor amount (and that mass) you become faster and more agile and then you repair that armor and conjure mass out of thin air again becoming heavier (from what ???) and lose speed and agility again ... which is total nonesense. The less mass more agility is lore btw..

As we have it now, the armor gets less, but not from mass loss, rather from failing integrity, which gets rearranged by the repair module and strengthens the armor again. No loss, reconjuring of mass... which makes sense.

Quote:
also, your comment about rigs/modules dont go up.

if you destroy a rig ( which is comparable to losing armor hp ) you free up the slot again, if you place a new rig, you loose the free slot and calibration points.

if you use a module it uses capacitor ( if active) if you disable the module it doesnt use capacitor..... in my eyes all the same more or less..

It is not about destroying a rig, but negating its bonus (using up the values) in the middle of the fight. The rig gets not destroyed as doesn't the module or anything else, unless you burn it out or blow up the ship. If you would apply your feature, you would have to reduce the penalty of rigs the same way their feature lessens .. as an example, less shield amout from a Sshield Extender Rig ... less sig radius penalty ...

And capacitor as well as switching off a module has nothing to do with this at all.

Answering this and addressing your questions step by step (especially the capacitor and rig one) makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about and the more I suspect this to be a troll post ...
Brutus Le'montac
#15 - 2014-08-11 15:44:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Brutus Le'montac
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
i'm not " coming from the lore" in any way

where i got this idea from is a game called space engineers, basicly minecraft in space.
depending on what armor you use ( heavy or normal, comparable to a 200mm vs 1600mm plate) your ship gets an amount of mass.
when a part of your ship breaks off, your mass lowers. increasing your speed and turn radius.

now, in my eyes, this is a very normal straight forwarded principle, and i fail to see where it comes from the lore, maybe you can point that out for me?

Sorry I have to explain this to you, but if you reduce mass by losing armor amount (and that mass) you become faster and more agile and then you repair that armor and conjure mass out of thin air again becoming heavier (from what ???) and lose speed and agility again ... which is total nonesense. The less mass more agility is lore btw..

As we have it now, the armor gets less, but not from mass loss, rather from failing integrity, which gets rearranged by the repair module and strengthens the armor again. No loss, reconjuring of mass... which makes sense.

Quote:
also, your comment about rigs/modules dont go up.

if you destroy a rig ( which is comparable to losing armor hp ) you free up the slot again, if you place a new rig, you loose the free slot and calibration points.

if you use a module it uses capacitor ( if active) if you disable the module it doesnt use capacitor..... in my eyes all the same more or less..

It is not about destroying a rig, but negating its bonus (using up the values) in the middle of the fight. The rig gets not destroyed as doesn't the module or anything else, unless you burn it out or blow up the ship. If you would apply your feature, you would have to reduce the penalty of rigs the same way their feature lessens .. as an example, less shield amout from a Sshield Extender Rig ... less sig radius penalty ...

And capacitor as well as switching off a module has nothing to do with this at all.

Answering this and addressing your questions step by step (especially the capacitor and rig one) makes me think you have no idea what you are talking about and the more I suspect this to be a troll post ...



right, so everything that doesnt fit you equals a troll post...

i did think with "coming form the lore" you did mean eve lore, of which i must admit, i'm not well informed in, outside some of the main faction stuff.

an armor Repair module repairs failing integrity, but what is failing integrity? is that having holes in your armor ( so less armor = less weights = more speed again)

or does failing integrity mean something else to you?

also, nanite paste uses nanobots...who knows maybe they fill the holes againd and as such adding mass?

just to be clear here, i'm serious about this proposal.
if i wanted to "troll" i could have gone for a different forum section and use another topic to troll.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
Brutus Le'montac
#16 - 2014-08-11 15:46:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Brutus Le'montac wrote:
hey all.

I have been toying around with an idea that might add just that little more pssssshhhh to armor tanking.

right now when you add a plate to your ship, your mass goes up, and your speed goes slightly down.
now how about this:

full armor = lower speed and higher mass.
missing armor HP = higher speed and lower mass.

basicly every % of armor hp lowers speed with a specific amount and adds mass, every % missing armor HP reverses the lower speed and more mass.

this means that when you are for example fighting and you are loosing armor HP, you get more speed, increasing your chance of survival.

if you are living in wormholes ( hot topic right now XD) you can jump through a wormhole on the edge of collapsing where others can not, because of your lower mass.

ofcourse if you repair your armor, you loose the gained advantage from missing armor HP.

now for shield tankers i can not really come up with an idea, however a shield tanked ship can ofcourse recieve the same increase of speed.
maybe lower sig radius based on shield HP for shield tanking ships?

let me know if this is something that could work out or not.just an idea i have been toying with.


The drawback of your fit is not supposed to go away like that. You made a choice when you fitted that plate. If you wanted to go fast, you should of fitted that slot differently.


i dont see it as a drawback, ofcourse if i want to go fast i know countless other ships/fits that can go fast, this idea is just to get some more intresting tactics and fights going on.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#17 - 2014-08-11 15:46:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Btw. I just read the whole thing again, which makes me doubt even more. The thing you said about shileds, even questioning the relation to sig radius is stupid.

Not to mention, that the game already functions in a certain way as proposed, not in absolutes, but %. Shutting off a MWD will lift the Sig penalty, offlining a plate will give speed (as done in tournaments/onlining doing the opposite).

Not sure why anyone would support this half backed nonsense. - Don't get me wrong, dynamic and realistic action/reactions/results would be great, but this is not a spaceship combat simulator, it's a space simulator in a very broad sense. And I don't see this happen, probably ever. And to just exploit it via armor ... is just silly.

-X

Brutus Le'montac wrote:
i dont see it as a drawback, ofcourse if i want to go fast i know countless other ships/fits that can go fast, this idea is just to get some more intresting tactics and fights going on.

No, you only add exploits. And I can see where you come from with your WH concept.
- Just fit nanos, shoot armor down to 0% and then jump 1000 capitals into a WH, rep up. done. Or fit nanos to Subcaps, shoot to 0%, Rep, refit for plates, done.
- Shield tanked, no prblem, shoot armor to 0% rep shields, 6000m/s BS ...
- Not to mention all the other nonesense.
Brutus Le'montac
#18 - 2014-08-11 15:50:53 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Btw. I just read the whole thing again, which makes me doubt even more. The thing you said about shileds, even questioning the relation to sig radius is stupid.

Not to mention, that the game already functions in a certain way as proposed, not in absolutes, but %. Shutting off a MWD will lift the Sig penalty, offlining a plate will give speed (as done in tournaments/onlining doing the opposite).

Not sure why anyone would support this half backed nonsense. - Don't get me wrong, dynamic and realistic action/reactions/results would be great, but this is not a spaceship combat simulator, it's a space simulator in a very broad sense. And I don't see this happen, probably ever. And to just exploit it via armor ... is just silly.

-X



why title it an exploit?
also, if this is "half backed nonsense" please show me some of your awesome ideas that have no holes in it?

to my knowledge an idea does have most of the times holes in its reasening, otherwise it wouldnt be an idea right?
instead of shooting everything down you dont like (perhaps because you shield tank? idk, i geuss because you seem kinda anti armor) try and learn constructive feedback ( surprise, this doesnt equal calling stuff you dont agree with trolls or half backed nonsense)

it was an IDEA, not set in stone or anyhing, however you made clear you dont like this idea, so thanks for your vote have a nice day.

Thought is dangerous; lack of thought, deadly!
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#19 - 2014-08-11 16:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Brutus Le'montac wrote:

why title it an exploit?
also, if this is "half backed nonsense" please show me some of your awesome ideas that have no holes in it?

Nice of you not to address the exploits I mentioned and not using your wits. And yes, you won't see my ideas until holes are eradicated but for a few, at which stage I will welcome critizism.

Quote:
...shooting everything down you dont like (perhaps because you shield tank? idk, i geuss because you seem kinda anti armor) try and learn constructive feedback ( surprise, this doesnt equal calling stuff you dont agree with trolls or half backed nonsense)

it was an IDEA, not set in stone or anyhing, however you made clear you dont like this idea, so thanks for your vote have a nice day.

Well, it is my right to critizise thinks I disagree with, dislike ideas that I dislike and shoot things down that are nonsense and/or bad for the game.
And I can differentiate between things I like as a player and things I find detrimental as a game designer or believe will negatively affect the community or the game in itself. Here I do not promote my opinion, but defend the game mechanics as they are.

And nice going, to go straight to ad honinum - I fly Armor Incursions.

And at I first countered, tried to argue, explain, but the more I tried to counter the more the sillyness became apparent. And all negative feedback (feedback, not opinion) is more constructive then positive can ever be.

Further more, since I am not the first to respond I have to not only fight the basic idea, but all thsoe who did not consider the negative effects, the exploits or ricidculousness by addressing the main post. So you will get the brute force that has to be distributed between all the "Didn't read - didn't consider, looks like fun - so plus one" posters.
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Fraternity.
#20 - 2014-08-11 16:08:09 UTC
pretty god idea, but id have it as structure that you reduced to reduce the mass, after all, its bits of your ship that your losing to lose the mass
12Next page