Ships & Modules

Hello fellow eve citizens,

The purpose of this thread is for us to pose questions, offer suggestions and debate issues regarding Shield Slave Sets (S3)

Recently in a capital ship balance thread (linkage) a CCP developer made mention that they were considering changing the way shield bonuses worked especially when changing sessions. In that same post it was also revealed that CCP is also considering the introduction of implant set that is equivalent to slaves, but applies the bonus to shields, hence Slave Shield Set (here after "S3")

If CCP introduces S3 it will be a game changer. I will not waste time explaining why, but I do think CCP could benefit from hearing the community's thoughts and positions concerning S3 before they have already iterated on the matter. Recent history has shown that the CSM might be biased to only a part of the eve community and they most likely be the only group CCP asks for suggestions. By offering our thoughts and opinions now, it is my hope that we do not end up with something which only benefits a part of the eve.

I have no interest in controlling the format of this thread or you posts, but I will suggest a few leading questions which I think should be addressed in this thread:


* Will the introduction of S3 lead to the need to also introduce an armor crystal set?

* Should S3 replace crystal sets?

* Should the S3 be restricted to use on capital ships? (this will be a hotly contested one)

* How should S3 be introduced into the game? (LP store, exploration, rat drops, reverse engineering...etc)

* if introduced in the LP store, which store should sell it?

* What are some of the balancing issues this may present?


I am hoping this thread generates lots of input and perhaps a few well reasoned debates. I am also hoping CCP will follow it and find it informative while they work on a final solution.

So please,

Discuss!

Ok, valid subject for a new thread here. However, not the way to make an OP for a thread -

1. As an OP you should be arsed to find the dev post to which you are referring.

2. You obviously wanted to present your own opinions as apparently you couldn't be arsed to wait for responses. Of course maybe because the OP wasn't well presented you weren't getting them.

3. what was three, the department of commerce? Oops.

I agree that I could have done a better job then my original post. I am ashamed by my lack of energy and effort.

I made my suggestions right after my first post (check the time) there was no waiting for others.

I would appreciate hearing your views on the matter.

Done

OK, thanks. I will quote what was said for this thread



That quote is from November 10, 2011 it looks like. The issues are not necessarily promises to change/introduce new things to the game, but things they will look into. Shield slave sets are not promised.

The first and last bullet items have been/are being addressed/introduced. As for the others in between including the one you made the subject of your thread there does not appear to be any introduction coming "soon" unless someonelse noticed something in a recent dev blog.

So many considerations with this because the tanking systems have always been different. Armor does not regen, that is why there are slaves, they simply provide more buffer. If there were a shield slave set I would think not only there should be a reduction in shield regen rate for wearing them but it should be no regen. Popping a shield slave set on a supercarrier could lead not only to huge ehp buff but it would also be compounded by shield regen considering the amount of time it takes to chew through supercap hp for any sized fleet.

So ok, if a shield slave set were introduced the drawback should be no regen on that shield. You trade buffer for the regen, so it operates like armor slaves do. You can still fit a shield repper if you think the buffer alone will not be sufficient for your tanking purposes. And with that drawback I do not see any reason to restrict their use to any sizes of ships.

As for armor crystals being introduced, well sure it would only be fair, and active armor tanks are hardly overpowered.

As for replacing crystal sets, will never happen that way. CCP is loathe to remove completely items from the game. If only for the practicle reason that it leads to too much weeping, pulling hair, and gnashing of teeth among the portion of the player base that used the items in questions. Nerfs on the other hand while also eliciting a similar response are to be expected. It's in the Eula I'm sure (:whistles: yeah I've read an memorized the whole thing) or should be common knowledge for any mmo player that in-game items are always subject to alteration - "pray that I don't alter them further"

As for how (if they do in fact get introduced into the game) I really don't care much. But probably a pirate faction would get them either as available in npc 0.0 mission lp store or drops from their suicide squads that we all decimate every day. Basically however slave implants enter the game it would be the same way (never bothered to investigate how slave sets enter the game other than contracts).

It's better to revert Slaves so that they work like Crystals. The game is already way too overtanked. Just saying

How about the people who are using slaves and like them as they are?

shields have crystals, armor has slaves. shields work better for smaller gangs, armor works better for larger ones. working as intended - aka there is a reason why CCP chose to do this in the first place, it's not like they forgot.

I was going to chime in with just giving Slaves the same "Doesn't work on capitals" attribute, but that works too.

My main concern with this "Slave Shield Set" is the massive growth to passive tank as others have suggested, especially if recharge rates remain the same.