These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 plating and shield extender rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2015-01-13 15:45:41 UTC
Some things that CCP needs to be bloody aware of:
1. The battlecruisers need their own prop mod size, they're horribly slow with 10MN stuff.
2. The armor plates and shield extenders have completely wonko pg requirements and HP bonuses.
The HP bonus they give isn't enough, and each class needs its own size with a tailored HP bonus and tailored PG requirement. Right now battleships fit large shield extenders and cruisers fit large shield extenders. Cruisers fit 1x 1600mm plate, and battleships fit 2. Given the drawback of battleships being so slow and such a higher sig radius, why would anyone then fly battleships given that they don't have better tank?
Frigates use medium shield extenders, FYI. All extenders below that are useless. The plates don't have the same low PG requirements so we still see 400mm plates on frigates, but really they would be using 800mm as their smallest module if they could.

Also, the repair bonus to dreadnoughts may have worked brilliantly back when there was 100 dreads in total in the game, but now self-reppers are completely and utterly useless for anything but PVE. All the self-reppers do is make just one more module of lag whenever a dread is targeted by a fleet.
Therefore I propose that the 1600mm armor plate has its HP bonus increased, along with all the smaller ones. I have no idea how much the HP has to be raised. In addition to this I propose a 3200mm plate for dreadnoughts and capitals which has appropriate PG requirements and armor hp bonus.
I also propose thatthe shield extenders are reworked roughly the same way. Another XL shield extender must be added for dreadnoughts and other capitals. I don't imagine titans and supers will use XL shield extenders or 3200mm plates, but its at least very useful for dreads.
The dreadnoughts are also very unbalanced, and I don't think they ever can be balanced. I therefore suggest they are just given different things to be the master of. So the moros is the damage master (across the entire spectrum of distance to target), the naglfar is the alpha strike master (across the entire spectrum of distance to target), the revelation is the tank master (bonus to armor resists and/or HP so a 4x damage-mod fitted revelation can survive a DD as its specialty), the phoenix is the ... festival launcher master or something, you get the point.

It would be nice if drones was removed completely, they just laaaag. But its less tiresome to just take lunch, I gather. Don't you know that calories expended on removing drones means you can eat more cake? So no point being lazy.

We also need a passive shield resistance module that gives resistance to all 4 damage types, so we can fit passive tanks to shield tanking dreads when it is obvious that there will be 100% tidi.

My calories come in the form of hate, feed me! Lol
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2015-01-13 16:06:21 UTC
Lots of words. Little cohesion.

I think you are posting pretty far into falloff.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2015-01-13 16:23:47 UTC
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#4 - 2015-01-13 17:14:17 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Ronny Hugo wrote:
Some things that CCP needs to be bloody aware of:
1. The battlecruisers need their own prop mod size, they're horribly slow with 10MN stuff.
2. The armor plates and shield extenders have completely wonko pg requirements and HP bonuses.
The HP bonus they give isn't enough, and each class needs its own size with a tailored HP bonus and tailored PG requirement. Right now battleships fit large shield extenders and cruisers fit large shield extenders. Cruisers fit 1x 1600mm plate, and battleships fit 2. Given the drawback of battleships being so slow and such a higher sig radius, why would anyone then fly battleships given that they don't have better tank?
Frigates use medium shield extenders, FYI. All extenders below that are useless. The plates don't have the same low PG requirements so we still see 400mm plates on frigates, but really they would be using 800mm as their smallest module if they could.

Also, the repair bonus to dreadnoughts may have worked brilliantly back when there was 100 dreads in total in the game, but now self-reppers are completely and utterly useless for anything but PVE. All the self-reppers do is make just one more module of lag whenever a dread is targeted by a fleet.
Therefore I propose that the 1600mm armor plate has its HP bonus increased, along with all the smaller ones. I have no idea how much the HP has to be raised. In addition to this I propose a 3200mm plate for dreadnoughts and capitals which has appropriate PG requirements and armor hp bonus.
I also propose thatthe shield extenders are reworked roughly the same way. Another XL shield extender must be added for dreadnoughts and other capitals. I don't imagine titans and supers will use XL shield extenders or 3200mm plates, but its at least very useful for dreads.
The dreadnoughts are also very unbalanced, and I don't think they ever can be balanced. I therefore suggest they are just given different things to be the master of. So the moros is the damage master (across the entire spectrum of distance to target), the naglfar is the alpha strike master (across the entire spectrum of distance to target), the revelation is the tank master (bonus to armor resists and/or HP so a 4x damage-mod fitted revelation can survive a DD as its specialty), the phoenix is the ... festival launcher master or something, you get the point.

It would be nice if drones was removed completely, they just laaaag. But its less tiresome to just take lunch, I gather. Don't you know that calories expended on removing drones means you can eat more cake? So no point being lazy.


I agree with parts of this. It has always bothered me that ships could fit "oversized" tank and propulsion modules. I get that it adds some variety and allows for creativity, but not when the standard fit is always "oversized" tank mods. When the standard for every frigate is a Medium Shield Extender or Medium Ancillary Shield Booster (or two) or GTFO, something is wrong. What Eve needs however, is not to bump the modules up, but to bump them down. Large buffer tanks are required in blob fights and require blobs to fight. If you want people to spread out, reducing buffer tanks is one way to do this. This would also be a direct buff to active tanks. Therefore, I propose:

1600mm plate / XL Armor Repair - battleship module
800mm plate / Large Armor Repair - BC module
400mm plate / Medium Armor Repair - cruiser module
200mm plate / Small Armor Repair - destroyer module
100mm plate / Micro Armor Repair - frigate module

Extra Large Shield Extender / XL Shield Booster - battleship module
Large Shield Extender / Large Shield Booster - BC module
Medium Shield Extender / Medium Shield Booster - cruiser module
Small Shield Extender / Small Shield Booster - destroyer module
Micro Shield Extender / Micro Shield Booster - frigate module

Adjust amounts boosted by all the above to come up with something that is balanced. Currently, "proper" sized modules are useless or so much less efficient as to be practically useless. Fix that.

Capital ships don't need additional options for buffer modules. Nor do they need additional options for propulsion modules.

For the propulsion modules, rebalance it along these lines, but don't put any fitting restrictions. If a ship wants to go for an oversized propulsion module, it should be possible, but at a greater tradeoff than currently.

100mn - battleship module
50mn - BC
10mn - cruiser
5mn - destroyer
1mn - frigate

Ronny Hugo wrote:


We also need a passive shield resistance module that gives resistance to all 4 damage types, so we can fit passive tanks to shield tanking dreads when it is obvious that there will be 100% tidi.
Lol


This part I completely disagree with.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Major Trant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2015-01-13 17:19:26 UTC
Dude your post is too rambling to be taken seriously. If I was a CCP employee tasked with looking through this forum for ideas worthy of further consideration, I'd just pass on this one.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#6 - 2015-01-13 17:25:06 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


I have one that can chase down interceptors. :frankfrank:
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#7 - 2015-01-13 17:49:25 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


Not to totally derail the thread, but...

I know it is sometimes silly to use real life analogies, but real life battle cruisers were meant to be faster, more heavily armed, less heavily armored ships. In that sense, the ABC's are the only true battlecruisers.

Personally, I think that making all the battlecruisers fit large weapons would be a step in the right direction.

Brutix - becomes a short-range specialist / brawler
Myrmidon - remains a drone specialist - bonuses which benefit heavy drones better
Talos - becomes a long-range specialist / sniper

Cyclone - remains a burst tanker / remains a missile ship but using cruise or torps (sort of like the old nanophoon), more geared towards torps than cruises
Hurricane - becomes a short-ranged specialist / brawler
Tornado - becomes a long-ranged specialist / sniper

Prophecy - remains a drone specialist - bonuses which benefit sentry drones more
Harbinger - becomes a short-range specialist / brawler
Oracle - becomes a long-range specialist / sniper

Ferox - becomes a short-range specialist / brawler
Drake - keeps a shield-resistance bonus / torp or cruise missile boat, more geared towards cruises than torps
Naga - remains a hybrid weapon boat / sniper

All BC's become relatively fast.

The brawlers get bonuses to acceleration, very strong burst tanking, DPS, and damage application. These are classic solo / small gang get in quick and fry him before you GTFO. If they miss getting tackle with the initial burst of speed, they will probably be kited to death unless they disengage. Or they can fit long-range weapons and become decent mid-range DPS ships.

The snipers get relatively poor damage application, but speed or sig radius bonus, DPS, and optimal range bonuses. These ships require support from a fleet to apply the DPS effectively, but if they have it, they hurt.

The specialized drone and missile boats come in short range vs long range flavors. They can fit the other weapons, but the bonuses encourage short or long range choices. For example, the Myrmidon would get significant bonuses to heavy drones (speed, damage, HP, etc), but would not be as effective as a sentry drone doctrine.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Sigras
Conglomo
#8 - 2015-01-13 18:10:05 UTC
How about no... being able to come up with creative fits is part of the game. There is no depth in locking each ship class into their own tailored module sizes.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#9 - 2015-01-13 19:10:10 UTC
Sigras wrote:
How about no... being able to come up with creative fits is part of the game. There is no depth in locking each ship class into their own tailored module sizes.


Ah, yes, because fitting 1600mm plates and Large Shield Extenders on every cruiser, BC, and battleship is so creative! Because fitting Medium Shield Extenders on every frigate and destroyer is so creative!

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Bullet Therapist
FT Cold Corporation
#10 - 2015-01-13 20:50:38 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


Not saying it's practical for every single situation, but 100mn MWD fit battlecruisers can pull over 5k/sec without heat.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2015-01-13 21:20:41 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Sigras wrote:
How about no... being able to come up with creative fits is part of the game. There is no depth in locking each ship class into their own tailored module sizes.


Ah, yes, because fitting 1600mm plates and Large Shield Extenders on every cruiser, BC, and battleship is so creative! Because fitting Medium Shield Extenders on every frigate and destroyer is so creative!

you DO realize compromises are made to fit those right?
Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2015-01-13 21:35:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Ronny Hugo
"If you want people to spread out, reducing buffer tanks is one way to do this."
No. Your prediction of human behavior is terrible.
I denounce and reject the stuff added after my first post.

FT Diomedes. Do you know how fleet doctrines come to be? Fitting masters just simply make EVERY POSSIBLE variation and then picks the best one. The one with most ehp, speed and dps at the appropriate range. EFT allows you to add a hundred or more fits to a graph to see what the DPS is from 0km range to 249km range with the selected ammo against the selected target fit.
That none of these fitting specialists make frigates with less than a medium shield extender, and don't make any cruisers with less than 2 large shield extenders, just mean that the smaller stuff is crap and pointless. What the smaller stuff does is clog up your harddrive.

Major Trant wrote:
Dude your post is too rambling to be taken seriously. If I was a CCP employee tasked with looking through this forum for ideas worthy of further consideration, I'd just pass on this one.

You'd probably not listen to Einstein because his hair wasn't presentable enough. You might as well go "you don't SOUND like someone who has right about this. I need a tie and a british accent before I believe anything anyone says no matter how good the argument may be".
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#13 - 2015-01-13 22:34:19 UTC
Ronny Hugo wrote:
"If you want people to spread out, reducing buffer tanks is one way to do this."
No. Your prediction of human behavior is terrible.
I denounce and reject the stuff added after my first post.

FT Diomedes. Do you know how fleet doctrines come to be? Fitting masters just simply make EVERY POSSIBLE variation and then picks the best one. The one with most ehp, speed and dps at the appropriate range. EFT allows you to add a hundred or more fits to a graph to see what the DPS is from 0km range to 249km range with the selected ammo against the selected target fit.
That none of these fitting specialists make frigates with less than a medium shield extender, and don't make any cruisers with less than 2 large shield extenders, just mean that the smaller stuff is crap and pointless. What the smaller stuff does is clog up your harddrive.

Major Trant wrote:
Dude your post is too rambling to be taken seriously. If I was a CCP employee tasked with looking through this forum for ideas worthy of further consideration, I'd just pass on this one.

You'd probably not listen to Einstein because his hair wasn't presentable enough. You might as well go "you don't SOUND like someone who has right about this. I need a tie and a british accent before I believe anything anyone says no matter how good the argument may be".


If I am in a fleet fight, one of the most important factors is whether I can catch reps (or warp out, but remote reps are the dominant meta) before I pop. Higher resistances and bigger buffers matter here. If the number of ships required to power through buffer/resistances/reps is lower, than I don't need as many ships in my fleet to kill one of yours. As it currently stands, if I don't bring enough ships to kill your ship before you can catch reps, I might as well not fight, because I cannot alpha you off the battlefield and I cannot break your reps. In other words, I will die and probably won't kill any of your ships. This is just an additional incentive to blob it up, to ensure that you can at least get some kills. Lowering that minimum number of ships required to make another ship pop quickly is an indirect way to make smaller fleets more effective.

At the lower end of the spectrum, making buffer tanks less powerful is a relative buff to active tanks (without having to buff active tanks to the point where we have power creep issues).

I agree with you that the small stuff is pointless - but only when compared to the relatively easy to fit oversized modules. If a frigate could not fit an MSE at all - or made more severe sacrifices to fit the MSE - the SSE would be less useless. If the SSE still did not give enough of a bonus to be worth using in comparison to a second point, web, or other module, then perhaps it could use some buffing.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Tiddle Jr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2015-01-13 22:42:05 UTC
It's a human nature, as soon as you have some kind of machine next thing you want to make it faster stronger etc. etc.
So simply saying the nature of this thread is to buff both kind of tanks armor and shield. Which is meh, so many similar ideas and thoughts have already exists.

In regard of plates and extenders I might suggest turn their bonuses into % vs. hitpoints, this would make them more interesting.

"The message is that there are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know" - CCP
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2015-01-13 22:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Antillie Sa'Kan
Ronny Hugo wrote:
"If you want people to spread out, reducing buffer tanks is one way to do this."
No. Your prediction of human behavior is terrible.
I denounce and reject the stuff added after my first post.

It's not really much of a discussion then is it?

Ronny Hugo wrote:
FT Diomedes. Do you know how fleet doctrines come to be? Fitting masters just simply make EVERY POSSIBLE variation and then picks the best one. The one with most ehp, speed and dps at the appropriate range. EFT allows you to add a hundred or more fits to a graph to see what the DPS is from 0km range to 249km range with the selected ammo against the selected target fit.
That none of these fitting specialists make frigates with less than a medium shield extender, and don't make any cruisers with less than 2 large shield extenders, just mean that the smaller stuff is crap and pointless. What the smaller stuff does is clog up your harddrive.

Since you seem to have no idea how doctrine fits are created either I don't think it really matters. But if you think that people try literally every possible combination then you really should think a little harder about it. However, not all frigates use medium shield extenders and I don't think I have ever seen a shield extender on a Diemos. Dual ABS fits rarely use shield extenders. In fact I don't think any of the fits in that video use any shield extenders or plates at all.

Ronny Hugo wrote:
You'd probably not listen to Einstein because his hair wasn't presentable enough. You might as well go "you don't SOUND like someone who has right about this. I need a tie and a british accent before I believe anything anyone says no matter how good the argument may be".

No, but you do need to be able to organize your thoughts and write them out in a cohesive manner. Einstein was actually very good at writing. Have you considered the possibility that there may be a reason that you don't sound like you know what you are talking about?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-01-14 02:02:55 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
100mn - battleship module
50mn - BC
10mn - cruiser
5mn - destroyer
1mn - frigate

No, 2MN for destroyer and 20MN for battlecruiser. Also, destroyers and battlecruisers will have to have their mass increased, or you can give them 1.5MN and 15MN. I believe the reason for their mass not being very high above frigates and cruisers is because they use the same prop mods.


3200mm armor plate should be for battleships, and likewise, battleships need to get an XL shield extender. Battleships barely have more EHP than battlecruisers, but are a lot slower and don't hit much harder. People already don't like battlecruisers so to give battleships a niche, they need to be able to fit more buffer.

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."
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2015-01-14 02:07:21 UTC
Bullet Therapist wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


Not saying it's practical for every single situation, but 100mn MWD fit battlecruisers can pull over 5k/sec without heat.

Sssshhhhhhh I don't want CCP nerfing this.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#18 - 2015-01-14 02:38:37 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


Not to totally derail the thread, but...

I know it is sometimes silly to use real life analogies, but real life battle cruisers were meant to be faster, more heavily armed, less heavily armored ships. In that sense, the ABC's are the only true battlecruisers.

I will not debate the rest of this topic as I rarely fly the BC class vessels but I did want to respond to this in hopes of shedding some light on the historical use of BC class vessels. Yes I know this is a game but I think a look back at why and how the BC class vessels came about might be helpful. Here is a link to a bit of history if you care to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser

Originally the BC class ships were designed to carry battleship class weapons in a ship that could approach the cruiser class of ships for speed and maneuverability to achieve these goals they reduced the armor and some other defensive aspects of the BC.

Over the years the BC class of ships has seen versions that were closer to cruisers and some that were closer to battleships sometimes referred to as pocket battleships.

From this historical perspective the current line up of BC class ships seems to be about perfect.
I think that some could be changed to fit large weapons in exchange for being slower, less maneuverable but with higher EHP, while some others could be made faster with more maneuverability in exchange for lower EHP. These changes might make them a more useful class and still stay in the historically more traditional role of the BC.

Ye I do understand that this is a game and that the real world does not always apply, as I stated earlier I just thought a little historical perspective might be good for this discussion as it has followed the discussion and changes to the real BC class of ships amazingly closely.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#19 - 2015-01-14 02:50:59 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
BC's were never meant to fly fast I believe...


Not to totally derail the thread, but...

I know it is sometimes silly to use real life analogies, but real life battle cruisers were meant to be faster, more heavily armed, less heavily armored ships. In that sense, the ABC's are the only true battlecruisers.


I think that some could be changed to fit large weapons in exchange for being slower, less maneuverable but with higher EHP, while some others could be made faster with more maneuverability in exchange for lower EHP. These changes might make them a more useful class and still stay in the historically more traditional role of the BC.



This makes good sense to me.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Ronny Hugo
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2015-01-14 14:30:51 UTC
Antillie Sa'Kan wrote:
Since you seem to have no idea how doctrine fits are created either I don't think it really matters. But if you think that people try literally every possible combination then you really should think a little harder about it.

"people" aren't responsible for the doctrine of their alliance. "people" anti-tank their freighters and put 3b worth of stuff in them.
I don't claim to know it all, I only claim to have seen that the people that do know it all (the big coalitions) don't field battlecruisers and battleships lately. Its all Isthars and tengus for cruiser sized hulls (some zealots still flying around), and Harpy frigates. Nothing other than that is fielded except for special occasions. They also don't fit the small armor plates and shield extenders, so its obvious that those modules aren't any good.
12Next page