These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Adaptive Shield Amplifiers
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Atomic Option
NO Tax FAT Stacks
#1 - 2014-01-25 04:09:18 UTC
I was trying to fit a shield ship that for various reasons can't benefit from an active shield module, but needed omni shield resists. This didn't seem like something that we'd want to maintain as a difference between armor and shield modules since there are already amplifiers for individual damage types.


Are these in the backlog? I think they should be.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#2 - 2014-01-25 04:30:40 UTC
Shields and Armor have some differences between the two... to keep them distinct yet balanced.


- Shields have an active omni-hardener that can be overloaded for higher resistances)... Armor has a passive omni-hardener that uses no capacitor.
- Shields have auto-regeneration (don't dismiss this, it's very handy when skirmishing)... Armor can achieve higher raw values.
- Shields frees up low-slots for more ship/weapon enhancement mods... Armor frees up mid-slots for more utility and Ewar mods.
- Shield Extenders make you easier to hit... Armor Plates make you less mobile.
- Shields have an implant set that boosts active tanking... Armor has an implant set that increases HP.
- Active Shield Repairs cycle fast... Active Armor Repairs are more "capacitor efficient."
- Shields have a relatively capacitor independent shield repair system (Ancillary Shield Booster) and can fit more than 1 of them... Armor has a repair unit that can repair a lot of HP in a single cycle and a mod that shifts resistances around.


Basically... I don't see why a crucial difference between the two systems should be removed. There are trade-offs and they should be maintained.

How did you Veterans start?
Atomic Option
NO Tax FAT Stacks
#3 - 2014-01-25 08:34:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Atomic Option
We're all aware they're different.

An adaptive amplifier doesn't change that since there are already amplifiers for individual damage types. Every other category of resist mod in the game has an adaptive variant. EANMs are so strong they might as well be active.

How you can possibly think that this would homogenize shield and armor tanking? That's silly. I'm just pointing out a hole in the current module scheme that should be as obvious as drone damage amps were in the weapon lineup.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#4 - 2014-01-25 09:03:17 UTC  |  Edited by: HiddenPorpoise
Atomic Option wrote:
How you can possibly think that this would homogenize shield and armor tanking? That's silly. I'm just pointing out a hole in the current module scheme that should be as obvious as drone damage amps were in the weapon lineup.

Well, if you add that you need to add active adaptive plates, and that would break very fast on caps.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#5 - 2014-01-25 11:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
+1 this topic has been brought up before and CCP seem to ignore it for some reason...
i don't agree with people saying we have invuls and armour has EANM and it should be kept this way to prevent homogenization..
shields and armour are different by their very nature they don't need artificial limits too keep them this way..

EANM and adaptive plating is more versatile than invuls and shield amps .. an omni armour hardener would also make sense

shield amps need some work for sure they use wildly varying cpu levels with very few meta variations

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
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#6 - 2014-01-25 12:13:29 UTC
What, shield tanks aren't capacitor immune enough for you? Minmatar and Caldari neut-immune master races? ONLY PEASANTS FEAR NEUTS.



When most shield tanked ships are capped out, their tank turns off.
When most armor tanked ships are capped out, their weapons turn off.
When Caldari using hybrids are capped out, everything turns off. Lol


It's purty simple.
Mario Putzo
#7 - 2014-01-25 18:02:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
They should have a passive Omni Shield Resist Amp
- it is silly that there isn't a passive weaker version of an active module when 4 exist already for individual resists
- It allows more flexibility in terms of Cap usage...not all shield ships chuck missiles.
- it makes sense.

Reactive Hardners should also be 20% not 15%
- They use Cap and they should have at base value more value than a DC in terms of Armor tanking.
- They should still shift resist to the max of 30
- If you are using 3 times the cap of a DC you should get more value.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#8 - 2014-01-25 22:24:19 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
They should have a passive Omni Shield Resist Amp
- it is silly that there isn't a passive weaker version of an active module when 4 exist already for individual resists
- It allows more flexibility in terms of Cap usage...not all shield ships chuck missiles.
- it makes sense.

Reactive Hardners should also be 20% not 15%
- They use Cap and they should have at base value more value than a DC in terms of Armor tanking.
- They should still shift resist to the max of 30
- If you are using 3 times the cap of a DC you should get more value.


- it is silly that there isn't a passive weaker version of an active module when 4 exist already for individual resists
You can say the same thing about an active omni resist module for armor tanking, and that'd be game-breakingly-strong... kinda leads to the conclusion that such a reason isn't a valid one.

- It allows more flexibility in terms of Cap usage...not all shield ships chuck missiles.
They also chuck projectiles. Which also don't need cap.

- They should still shift resist to the max of 30
There is no such max, they're just worthless modules that are so badly coded that they're usually, but not always, unable to figure out how to do anything other than raise 2 resists to 30.

- If you are using 3 times the cap of a DC you should get more value.
They use WAY more than 3 times the cap of a DC... 189 times more cap when max skilled to be precise. Quite literally, if you're not going full-tank on an Avatar, a Reactive Hardener is always a bad choice. They are THAT bad.
Johann Rascali
The Milkmen
Sedition.
#9 - 2014-01-26 09:50:41 UTC
Rented wrote:
[quote=Mario Putzo]Quite literally, if you're not going full-tank on an Avatar, a Reactive Hardener is always a bad choice. They are THAT bad.


I'm pretty sad it came out after the Drake meta dunked. 60% Kinetic resist with the option to automatically swap that when their FC calls a missile change would be pretty nice.

Blanking signatures doesn't seem to work, so this is here.
Silvetica Dian
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2014-01-26 11:06:10 UTC
Atomic Option wrote:
I was trying to fit a shield ship that for various reasons can't benefit from an active shield module.


There is already well informed reasoning why we don't have the module you are asking for.
A more interesting question is what ship you have that can't benefit from an active shield module?
I suspect if you back up a few steps to what ship you have and what you want it for you will find someone had already solved the fitting riddle.

Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85
Mario Putzo
#11 - 2014-01-26 17:36:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Rented wrote:

You can say the same thing about an active omni resist module for armor tanking, and that'd be game-breakingly-strong... kinda leads to the conclusion that such a reason isn't a valid one.

They also chuck projectiles. Which also don't need cap.

There is no such max, they're just worthless modules that are so badly coded that they're usually, but not always, unable to figure out how to do anything other than raise 2 resists to 30.

They use WAY more than 3 times the cap of a DC... 189 times more cap when max skilled to be precise. Quite literally, if you're not going full-tank on an Avatar, a Reactive Hardener is always a bad choice. They are THAT bad.


Game breakingly strong only if it is just chucked in with no drawback (IE Cap hungry)

Shields can also be used on Laser and Blaster ships, Shield Omens, Oracles. Blaster Ferox, Rail Rokh, heck Blaster Brutix are pretty baller with Shields too.

Ive never been shot with single damage long enough to see it get over 30 I guess, just assumed it capped at 30 vOv

And yes thats my point. Should Reactive Hardners not be better than a module designed for hull tank support? Especially when they consume much more cap. x3 was an arbitrary number the fact is they are **** and should be improved.
John XIII
The Carnifex Corp
#12 - 2014-01-26 17:41:32 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:
Shields and Armor have some differences between the two... to keep them distinct yet balanced.


- Shields have an active omni-hardener that can be overloaded for higher resistances)... Armor has a passive omni-hardener that uses no capacitor.
- Shields have auto-regeneration (don't dismiss this, it's very handy when skirmishing)... Armor can achieve higher raw values.
- Shields frees up low-slots for more ship/weapon enhancement mods... Armor frees up mid-slots for more utility and Ewar mods.
- Shield Extenders make you easier to hit... Armor Plates make you less mobile.
- Shields have an implant set that boosts active tanking... Armor has an implant set that increases HP.
- Active Shield Repairs cycle fast... Active Armor Repairs are more "capacitor efficient."
- Shields have a relatively capacitor independent shield repair system (Ancillary Shield Booster) and can fit more than 1 of them... Armor has a repair unit that can repair a lot of HP in a single cycle and a mod that shifts resistances around.


Basically... I don't see why a crucial difference between the two systems should be removed. There are trade-offs and they should be maintained.


What a fantastic post! +1

Between Ignorance and Wisdom