These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Bump buffer tank mods up a level
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#21 - 2014-02-24 22:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Bertrand Butler wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:
Bertrand Butler wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

Large Shield Extender 2:
6000 HP
400 PG
60 CPU

1600mm steel armor plate 2:
10000 HP
1000 PG
52 CPU


The correct figures (if you take into account the current module classes) should be:

X-Large Shield Extender II:
6500 HP
870 PG (Shield Upgrades skill @lvl0)
62 CPU
Signature Radius Bonus: 90m

3200mm Reinforced Steel Plates II:
9600 HP
1440 PG
38 CPU
Mass Adittion: 7.000.000kg

The idea has been posted a lot of times before, and it is not entirely without merit. The balancing problems stemming from it right now though regarding slot efficiency in hulls outstrip the benefits.

ps: Just bumping the names will not work, as it will break all existing fitted ships, the market and internal+third party documentation. You cannot code a change like this easily without changing the ID tag for the item, so you might as well add it on top and be done with it.


Fair enough, but the PG reqs look quite high; a 3200 plate should be a clear progression up; 800s use a tad under half that of 1600s, so it would make more sense to me for it to be closer to 1k pg usage. The pg reqs for the XL extender also seem obnoxiously high. Aside from that, I do believe they should at least chop off the lowest level; micro extenders and 50mm plates are useless things.


It is a clear progression. The 800mm plate needs 230PG for 2400 armor, and the 1600mm plate needs 575 for 4800.
To double the effective armor for a possible 3200mm plate, you would need to observe the PG interaction between the lower classes.

3200pg = 1600pg * (1600pg/800pg) = 575 * 2.5 = 1437.5pg.

Even if you do that though, you have to add some more fitting cost since you additionally get ONE FREE SLOT for the same amount of armor. I put there 1440PG, but I really think it could be even higher.

Same goes for the X-Large Shield extender. Remember though that the latter also has a skill that reduces the PG needed to fit it.

XLpg = Lpg * (Lpg/Mpg) = 165 * 5.32 = 878pg

I put 870PG for the X-Large Shield extender, I think though that it could/should be even higher for balance.

Ultimately though, the problem persists. You have to re-balance A LOT of hulls to remove power creep from BC+BS hulls if something like this has to go through. The balancing problems outstrip any benefit.


Thank you for clarifying that; I retract my earlier statement, and support this model more rigorously since it makes it more difficult for cruisers to fit, makes more sense from a progression perspective, and you did maths to back it up. :P

Also, you inadvertantly hit my point right on the button; BC/BS NEED an HP power creep; they are too close to cruisers despite sig radius differences, especially with battleships. It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to widen the HP gap between cruiser, BC, and BS due to their size, fitting abilities and prices, especially if you factor in their roles; the larger boats that benefit from this WOULD BE generally fleet-oriented, so it makes a significant amount of sense for them to be markedly more powerful than the cruisers and frigates they would be engaging from a one on one comparison.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#22 - 2014-02-24 22:13:38 UTC
Catherine Laartii wrote:

Also, you inadvertantly hit my point right on the button; BC/BS NEED an HP power creep; they are too close to cruisers despite sig radius differences, especially with battleships. It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to widen the HP gap between cruiser, BC, and BS due to their size, fitting abilities and prices, especially if you factor in their roles; the larger boats that benefit from this WOULD BE generally fleet-oriented, so it makes a significant amount of sense for them to be markedly more powerful than the cruisers and frigates they would be engaging from a one on one comparison.


I also think its much easier to argue this implemented through base-stat changes than it is to advocate for rebalancing the buffer modules specifically

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#23 - 2014-02-25 00:21:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Batelle wrote:
Catherine Laartii wrote:

Also, you inadvertantly hit my point right on the button; BC/BS NEED an HP power creep; they are too close to cruisers despite sig radius differences, especially with battleships. It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to widen the HP gap between cruiser, BC, and BS due to their size, fitting abilities and prices, especially if you factor in their roles; the larger boats that benefit from this WOULD BE generally fleet-oriented, so it makes a significant amount of sense for them to be markedly more powerful than the cruisers and frigates they would be engaging from a one on one comparison.


I also think its much easier to argue this implemented through base-stat changes than it is to advocate for rebalancing the buffer modules specifically


On the contrary, it would be far more of a headache for them to debate how to balance base stats than to introduce larger modules. Considering how long the rebalances had taken, it would be significantly more difficult to do that, at least in my opinion.

Part of the technical objection I would have would be based off of the relative HP amounts each are intended to give vs their class; large extenders tend to be on-par for shield cruiser hp, same can be said for 800 plates with cruisers, difference being skills that apply to shields tend to compensate somewhat in relation to the 1600 plate, although that's somewhat debatable considering how many of one is fit vs the other. Perhaps just introducing XL extenders would be appropriate? Armor tanking is at a fairly good place currently.

There is also the very notable fact that a base-stat change would be reflective of active-tanked battleships as well. There would be a severe outcry over them not being included in the buff, and it doesn't lend quite as well to the whole sandbox idea; generally taking the line of thought with increasing players' options for customization and flexibility has always generally been the best route to go for rebalances and new content in the game.
Previous page12