These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Reactive Damage Control, for medium power slot
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-05-25 08:05:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
This is both a suggestion for a medium slot damage control module (that is different from the low slot variant) as well as a demonstration of how to calculate the resistance values to make them balanced in all cases. The Reactive Armor Hardener could be adjusted to use the new math.

The Medium Power Damage Control, or Reactive Damage Control, grants 10% shield, 7.5% armor, and 50% hull resists when it initially activates. During the time it is active, it records all damage sustained for up to one minute, and stores the amounts in terms of percentages of each damage type. At the beginning of each new cycle, it checks the last 6 cycles worth of damage sustained and uses that information to determine the amount of resistance it gives to each type. It numbers each amount in terms of the percentage, where 100% is 10,000 points. The resistance value granted is calculated for shield by x/(x+22,500), for armor by x/(x+30,833), and for hull by x/(x+2500) where x is the point value for that damage type. For instance, if you sustained 370 EM damage, 234 thermal damage, and 28 kinetic damage (before resistances), that's 58.54% EM damage (370/632), 37.03% thermal damage (234/632), and 4.43% kinetic damage (28/632). On the next cycle, the reactive damage control would grant:

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2015-05-25 08:09:30 UTC


  • +20.7% EM shield resist // +16.0% EM armor resist // +70.1% EM hull resist (5854/28,354, 5854/36,687, 5854/8354)
  • +14.1% thermal shield resist // +10.7% thermal armor resist // +59.7% thermal hull resist (3703/26,203, 3703/34,536, 3703/6203)
  • +1.9% kinetic shield resist // +1.4% kinetic armor resist // +15.1% kinetic hull resist (443/22,943, 443/31,276, 443/2943)

On the other hand, if only one type of damage was dealt to you, your reactive damage control would grant that resistance at +30.8%//+24.5%//+80.0%. But if all damage dealt was spread out evenly across all damage types, then each resistance would get exactly +10.0%//7.5%//50.0%. All of these amounts are free from stacking penalty. If the reactive damage control runs for a minute and a half without recording any damage amounts, the values will reset back to 10/7.5/50% to all.

Only one damage control or reactive damage control may be fitted to a ship at any time.

Reactive Damage Control I

  • 1mw powergrid, 40tf CPU
  • 30gj activation cost, 15.00s duration
  • +10% all shield resists
  • +7.5% all armor resists
  • +50% all hull resists



Reactive Damage Control II

  • 1mw powergrid, 48tf CPU
  • 36gj activation cost, 15.00s duration
  • +15% all shield resists
  • +12.5% all armor resists
  • +60% all hull resists

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-05-25 08:11:45 UTC
edit: I seem to be unable to post this in the original post. Several tries later and at best I can put it in in three pieces, one in a different post. But I seem to have no trouble posting normally. I was unable to post this segment as an edit.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#4 - 2015-05-25 08:29:10 UTC
1st question: why, do we need this module?
2nd question: why should it be THAT complicated?
3rd question: What would happen, if I fit a Damage Control and your module? I would not need any tank anymore... Hull Tanking at 90 %
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-05-25 08:37:58 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
1st question: why, do we need this module?
2nd question: why should it be THAT complicated?
3rd question: What would happen, if I fit a Damage Control and your module? I would not need any tank anymore... Hull Tanking at 90 %


1.) because armor tanks suffer due to always having one slot less for tank-other-than-damage-control, thus if there was a medium slot option, armor tanks could choose it to free up a slot

2.) it is MUCH less complicated than the missile damage formula. This calculation grants a balanced resist value for all situations. The additive balancing of the Reactive Armor Hardener leads either to too much damage resistance when focused on one type, too little when spread across all types, or both. 15% to all is the same as a t1 EANM, much lower than a t2 EANM and in fact is lower than a t2 resist plating with minimal skills to use it. But 60% to one resist is even higher than a t2 hardener, and to top it off, the RAH ignores stacking penalty.

My version is more balanced at both extremes.

3.) it says in the OP: "Only one damage control or reactive damage control may be fitted to a ship at any time."

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Specia1 K
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#6 - 2015-05-25 11:02:16 UTC
Interesting.

You are combining the DCU and the reactive, and then shifting it to a mid-slot. You are freeing up 2 low slots, at the cost of 1 mid-slot.

I might agree with either module having a mid-slot counterpart, but not both together in 1 module. In either the mid or low slot.

As to the armor/shield fitting imbalances, there is no passive adaptive module for shields. But that's a different kettle altogetherBlink

4/10.
All of it for your good posting, sir.
I disagree with the module presented, however.

Champion of the Knights of the General Discussion

Thunderdome
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#7 - 2015-05-25 13:18:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
NO
To complex, tracking this could driver the server scribes into a worthless fit of insanity and slow the entire system AKA server lag.

NO
Because it would be OP.

NO
Because I am not even sure that the problem you seek to remedy with this idea even exists outside of your own mind.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-05-25 13:20:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Specia1 K wrote:
Interesting.

You are combining the DCU and the reactive, and then shifting it to a mid-slot. You are freeing up 2 low slots, at the cost of 1 mid-slot.

It provides far less armor resist than the RAH. Its reactive nature might help make up for it having less armor resists in total over a standard damage control, but that's about it.

Donnachadh wrote:
NO
To complex, tracking this could driver the server scribes into a worthless fit of insanity and slow the entire system AKA server lag.
The Reactive Armor Hardener doesn't, why would this? It's the same number of computations.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Zaknafein Tactical Reconnaissance
#9 - 2015-05-25 14:41:50 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Interesting.

You are combining the DCU and the reactive, and then shifting it to a mid-slot. You are freeing up 2 low slots, at the cost of 1 mid-slot.

It provides far less armor resist than the RAH. Its reactive nature might help make up for it having less armor resists in total over a standard damage control, but that's about it.

Donnachadh wrote:
NO
To complex, tracking this could driver the server scribes into a worthless fit of insanity and slow the entire system AKA server lag.
The Reactive Armor Hardener doesn't, why would this? It's the same number of computations.


Its a different number, the reactive armor hardener only applies its bonuses to damage taken during the cycle. It also doesn't refresh until you turn it off and back on again.

I agree that a mid slot version of the reactive armor hardener needs to exist but only for shields.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-05-25 15:21:05 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Specia1 K wrote:
Interesting.

You are combining the DCU and the reactive, and then shifting it to a mid-slot. You are freeing up 2 low slots, at the cost of 1 mid-slot.

It provides far less armor resist than the RAH. Its reactive nature might help make up for it having less armor resists in total over a standard damage control, but that's about it.

Donnachadh wrote:
NO
To complex, tracking this could driver the server scribes into a worthless fit of insanity and slow the entire system AKA server lag.
The Reactive Armor Hardener doesn't, why would this? It's the same number of computations.


Its a different number, the reactive armor hardener only applies its bonuses to damage taken during the cycle. It also doesn't refresh until you turn it off and back on again.

I agree that a mid slot version of the reactive armor hardener needs to exist but only for shields.


You already have adaptive invs for shields, keep armour and shield tanking as different skills..
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-05-25 15:40:56 UTC
I really don't see the point in this.
It's more useful to shields than it is to armor.

That said, the DCU is an extremely powerful module for armor tank and it gives you a huge hull buffer.
I could see a module like this for shield tanks, so that you get a armor and or hull buffer, but if you're that worried about buffer, it worth dropping a damage mod for a DCU.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#12 - 2015-05-25 17:51:52 UTC
This sounds more like you want 2 free low slots to give your "all tank & no spank" fits some teeth.....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Kashadin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-05-25 18:36:42 UTC
You know that those mods don't actually "adapt" to anything right? They are the same as the "adaptive nano plating" except that they are 1: for shields and 2:are a active mod so they can be neuted off (the balance being that they can be overheated to provide better resist)

A reactive hardener for shields would be interesting, tho I think that the inherent strength of small scale (in terms of fleet size) buffer fits for shields, since you can add regen ontop of the buffer, would make them a little broken.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-05-25 23:57:28 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
I agree that a mid slot version of the reactive armor hardener needs to exist but only for shields.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
You already have adaptive invs for shields, keep armour and shield tanking as different skills..

Joe Risalo wrote:
I could see a module like this for shield tanks, so that you get a armor and or hull buffer, but if you're that worried about buffer, it worth dropping a damage mod for a DCU.

Asuka Solo wrote:
This sounds more like you want 2 free low slots to give your "all tank & no spank" fits some teeth.....


I balanced it to give more resists to shield, just as the low slot damage control gives more bonus to armor. But ultimately it gives much more bonus to hull than anything else. If you think the amount of bonus for armor or shield is too much, lets talk about that. But this module is not intended to replace actual shield or armor tank mods.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#15 - 2015-05-26 00:04:18 UTC
Like many of your ideas Reaver, I like the concept, but can't support the implementation.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-05-26 00:11:20 UTC
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:
Its a different number, the reactive armor hardener only applies its bonuses to damage taken during the cycle. It also doesn't refresh until you turn it off and back on again.

I'll admit I'm not very clear on exactly how the reactive armor hardener works, or what calculations it does. I do know, however, that it records incoming damage, just as incoming damage is recorded in logs even when you are not running one of these, and none of this recording causes any performance issues. The calculations performed from the recordings are also much lighter than those used for drone and missile movement and location calculations. It won't cause any server performance issues, but that's beside the point because such performance is not for us players to speculate about, but for the programmers at CCP to think about. They have a much better grasp of what will or will not cause lag spikes, and they can be tasked with coming up with a better way of calculating for the module if necessary. I simply offered an equation that yields a better result than the equation they are using.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2015-05-26 00:15:40 UTC
Kashadin wrote:
You know that those mods don't actually "adapt" to anything right? They are the same as the "adaptive nano plating" except that they are 1: for shields and 2:are a active mod so they can be neuted off (the balance being that they can be overheated to provide better resist)

A reactive hardener for shields would be interesting, tho I think that the inherent strength of small scale (in terms of fleet size) buffer fits for shields, since you can add regen ontop of the buffer, would make them a little broken.

James Baboli wrote:
Like many of your ideas Reaver, I like the concept, but can't support the implementation.

The most important distinction between shield and armor tanks is that shield tanks get more resists across the board with their module, but at the cost of CPU and capacitor. Shields don't get a cheaper option and armor doesn't get a more expensive option (not counting the RAH). Now armor also gets a Reactive Armor Hardener which offers actually less resistance than an EANM, but it can adapt to incoming damage types for potentially better performance. AIF gives much more total resistance and is stronger (though not necessarily better) than the RAH in most or almost all cases.


Once again I wish to remind you all that my RDC is entirely based around being a substitute for the regular Damage Control module, should you either wish to alter its functionality at the cost of CPU and capacitor, or use a mid slot instead of a low slot. I wish it to be balanced to approximately the same overall utility as the low slot Damage Control. It should not dominate but should be a situational choice that people sometimes, but not always, choose over the low slot Damage Control. To that end, please refrain from making comments about it being a bad idea due to being overpowered or underpowered, and instead suggest how the stats can/should be altered to adjust it to where it needs to be.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."