Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vladimir Nabokov
Rapid Response Rescue and Repair
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 11:05:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Vladimir Nabokov on 13/09/2009 11:08:02 not really an idea. just wondering why they don't exist given that people are fitting 3 or 4 1600s or Large extenders. im sure the powergrid/cpu requirements could be increased in such a way that a 3200mm plate or X-Large shield extender would be appropriately balanced.
|
Varacity
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 11:12:00 -
[2]
I'd say it would have be a tradeoff with freeing up extra slots. E.g. an X-Large shield extender does not do as much for the same power/cpu requirements as multiple large shield extenders, but in return frees up a slot or two for other mods. Then again... multiple X-large shield extenders...
|
Grut
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 11:16:00 -
[3]
People fit oversized plates on frigs, cruisers and BCs. I think your right BS could do with similar, it could really improved their tanking in bigger fights.
+1 from me.
Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know...
Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought |
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 13:15:00 -
[4]
Nope, passive tanks are strong enough. Do not discuss moderation in your signature. Zymurgist |
Lunewraith
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 13:23:00 -
[5]
No problem with oversized stuff as long as the sig radius increase on the extenders would allow a Dread in siege mode to hit it, and the plate give you a huge mass/agility penalty.
In other words, capital plates and capital extenders for capital ships
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 14:36:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Valandril Nope, passive tanks are strong enough.
This imo.
If anything there needs to be some sort of concession to boost active tanking more viable.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 15:18:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 13/09/2009 15:24:17
I agree with Valandril.
Passive tanks are already the norm. If at all, I' like to see fitting requirements increased across the board. Smaller buffers means fewer effective hp, which means shorter fights, which means moar power to the alpha, probably also more active tanking, which means moar power to capless weapons, which means more win for minmatar, which means a bit less power for amarr, which means overall more balance and fun.
-edit- Apart from that I find it very strange and silly if any kind of plating or extender adds (a lot) more armor or shield hp than the ship originally had. It also makes it a balancing nightmare, since the further minimum and maximum are apart, the harder it is to balance. 3200mm armor plates would add 8400 hp? Thinking about just how many you could put one some ships makes my stomach hurt..
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.09.13 16:13:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 13/09/2009 16:16:03 This.
Originally by: Valandril Nope, passive tanks are strong enough.
And this.
Originally by: Tarron Sarek Apart from that I find it very strange and silly if any kind of plating or extender adds (a lot) more armor or shield hp than the ship originally had. It also makes it a balancing nightmare, since the further minimum and maximum are apart, the harder it is to balance. 3200mm armor plates would add 8400 hp? Thinking about just how many you could put one some ships makes my stomach hurt.. Ship base stats should be important, and equipment should only add to that and emphasize some points. Not the other way around. Otherwise differences in base stats, thus a lot of the variety of ships, become meaningless.
Passive tanks already dominate pvp.
|
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 12:13:00 -
[9]
Capital plates and extenders sure, but they shouldn't fit on a BS under any setup. Of course, they'd need to add relevant amounts of HP to capitals. Ballpark of 20-40k HP each would be appropriate I think.
In regards to active tanking, it's tough to balance it. In a 1v1, active tanks are pretty even with passive. However, in a 2v2 it switches very heavily in favor of buffer since you can active tank 1000 dps on a BS but you can't active tank 2000. As the fights get bigger, active tanking becomes more of a joke. I don't see a way to make active tanking more viable in fleet fights without making it epically overpowered in 1v1's to the point where it's impossible to kill another ship solo. I think the best thing is to just leave it as is. -----------------------------------------------------
|
Zaknussem
Intrum Industria
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 12:20:00 -
[10]
I agree with what has been said. 3200m plates and X-Large Shield Extenders should not be introduced into the game.
However, I'm all for looking into adding capital-sized versions of these modules into EvE. |
|
Wrangler Al
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 14:35:00 -
[11]
The main problem is shields don't last as long as armour and then the ship is quickly destroyed
whereas armour tanks benifit from a buffer shield and an armour that can easily last, twice what shields can... Rendering shield tankers obsolete in fleet battles
And yet shields are supposed to be the best at absorbing alpha damage.
my suggestion is to apply shield resists to the TOTALdamage applied to shields per second, rather than working it out for each and every hit.
This would meen that the same resists are applied for 1 attacker or 40 and would meen that solo combat is unaffected; but shields are better against large alphas that come with being primaried in fleet battles
Just enough to give shield tankers a slight edge, not much, as atm armour tankers are the pvp ship of choice and it would make up for the fact that shield tankers use missiles which are not instant damage and now with the sig/velocity nerf have become worse than drones
|
1600 RT
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 14:55:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Wrangler Al The main problem is shields don't last as long as armour and then the ship is quickly destroyed
whereas armour tanks benifit from a buffer shield and an armour that can easily last, twice what shields can... Rendering shield tankers obsolete in fleet battles
And yet shields are supposed to be the best at absorbing alpha damage.
my suggestion is to apply shield resists to the TOTALdamage applied to shields per second, rather than working it out for each and every hit.
This would meen that the same resists are applied for 1 attacker or 40 and would meen that solo combat is unaffected; but shields are better against large alphas that come with being primaried in fleet battles
Just enough to give shield tankers a slight edge, not much, as atm armour tankers are the pvp ship of choice and it would make up for the fact that shield tankers use missiles which are not instant damage and now with the sig/velocity nerf have become worse than drones
shield tank is more powerful for active tank armor is the best for passive tank (except some freaking BC).
the only problem i see is a balance between active and passive tank, because in anything except 1vs1 passive tank is always better.
|
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis eXsecratio Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 14:56:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Valandril on 14/09/2009 14:56:37
Originally by: 1600 RT
Originally by: Wrangler Al The main problem is shields don't last as long as armour and then the ship is quickly destroyed
whereas armour tanks benifit from a buffer shield and an armour that can easily last, twice what shields can... Rendering shield tankers obsolete in fleet battles
And yet shields are supposed to be the best at absorbing alpha damage.
my suggestion is to apply shield resists to the TOTALdamage applied to shields per second, rather than working it out for each and every hit.
This would meen that the same resists are applied for 1 attacker or 40 and would meen that solo combat is unaffected; but shields are better against large alphas that come with being primaried in fleet battles
Just enough to give shield tankers a slight edge, not much, as atm armour tankers are the pvp ship of choice and it would make up for the fact that shield tankers use missiles which are not instant damage and now with the sig/velocity nerf have become worse than drones
shield tank is more powerful for active tank armor is the best for passive tank (except some freaking BC).
the only problem i see is a balance between active and passive tank, because in anything except 1vs1 passive tank is always better.
Wanna bet 50b isk on that ? I will put my crystal set shieldtanker vs any passive tanker with slaves in 1vsMultiple. Do not discuss moderation in your signature. Zymurgist |
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 15:28:00 -
[14]
If there's really a complaint about Capital level modules that need not to be used for BS's, there's an easy fix.
Make the capital level ones a percentage based increase rather than a fixed amount... just like the hull mods are. The % increase isn't very useful on a BS because it doesn't add enough to be better than the existing plates, but on a capital, they would add significantly more.
|
AtheistOfDoom
The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.09.14 16:39:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tom Peeping If there's really a complaint about Capital level modules that need not to be used for BS's, there's an easy fix.
Make the capital level ones a percentage based increase rather than a fixed amount... just like the hull mods are. The % increase isn't very useful on a BS because it doesn't add enough to be better than the existing plates, but on a capital, they would add significantly more.
We already have percentage based mods that can be used on caps. Energized regenerative membranes. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |