EVE Search - [Proposal] A change to tanking mechanic.

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] A change to tanking mechanic.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cuirychi Devan	Posted - 2009.07.01 13:13:00 - [1] Edited by: Cuirychi Devan on 01/07/2009 13:13:56 The way Armor repairers and Shield boosters work is just wierd imo. Waiting for the whole cycle to complete makes no sense. While an armor repairer/shield booster is repairing the ship, it is working and repairing during the whole time it is on, so why we must wait until the last second to get a boost all of a sudden? My proposal is: change the repairing system so that the repair process is distributed during the whole time that a module is on. I hope my english allow me to be understood.
Jamyl TashMurkon Amarr	Posted - 2009.07.01 13:15:00 - [2] why
steave435 Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.01 13:39:00 - [3] Would increase lag alot since the server would have to calculate a boost for your ship every 0.1 second or whatever. Bad idea.
Cuirychi Devan	Posted - 2009.07.01 13:59:00 - [4] Originally by: steave435 Would increase lag alot since the server would have to calculate a boost for your ship every 0.1 second or whatever. Bad idea. Wrong, it would be just like how the capacitor recharge itself.
Nidhiesk	Posted - 2009.07.01 14:00:00 - [5] Edited by: Nidhiesk on 01/07/2009 14:00:48 Originally by: steave435 Would increase lag alot since the server would have to calculate a boost for your ship every 0.1 second or whatever. Bad idea. 1 point to you since I believe calculation would be made per .1 second or so compared to 4-5 or so seconds.. or whatever recharge time you got. the data still has to be sent to you
Fossil Wolf omen. Gay4Life	Posted - 2009.07.01 14:54:00 - [6] Originally by: Cuirychi Devan Originally by: steave435 Would increase lag alot since the server would have to calculate a boost for your ship every 0.1 second or whatever. Bad idea. Wrong, it would be just like how the capacitor recharge itself. Or passive shield tanks, right?
Kaylan Jahlar Minmatar Industrial Limited	Posted - 2009.07.01 15:10:00 - [7] Originally by: Nidhiesk Edited by: Nidhiesk on 01/07/2009 14:00:48 Originally by: steave435 Would increase lag alot since the server would have to calculate a boost for your ship every 0.1 second or whatever. Bad idea. 1 point to you since I believe calculation would be made per .1 second or so compared to 4-5 or so seconds.. or whatever recharge time you got. the data still has to be sent to you Why not just let CCP decide if this would affect lag or not? Truth is, nobody really knows how this would work, so stop making assumptions. I support this feature.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.07.01 17:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Kaylan Jahlar Originally by: Nidhiesk Edited by: Nidhiesk on 01/07/2009 14:00:48 Originally by: steave435 Would increase lag alot since the server would have to calculate a boost for your ship every 0.1 second or whatever. Bad idea. 1 point to you since I believe calculation would be made per .1 second or so compared to 4-5 or so seconds.. or whatever recharge time you got. the data still has to be sent to you Why not just let CCP decide if this would affect lag or not? Truth is, nobody really knows how this would work, so stop making assumptions. I support this feature. Lag is always a valid argument, however, in this case I believe its a moot point. I think repair modules are just fine right now. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart - Closed
Odetta Harpy	Posted - 2009.07.01 19:12:00 - [9] Edited by: Odetta Harpy on 01/07/2009 19:14:15 i wouldnt realy want this to happen, unless it repaired alot of armour then it would kill armour tanking. However i would like somthing similer done to the regenerative plates, rather then them just adding a armour percentage, maby adding somthing similar for medium slots and rigs so that a armour tanker could be fitted like drake. edit: shield already have somthing like that, their called shield rechargers and shield power relays.
Cuirychi Devan	Posted - 2009.07.01 20:46:00 - [10] Originally by: Odetta Harpy edit: shield already have somthing like that, their called shield rechargers and shield power relays. No, you are wrong, you are talking about the natural recharge rate of shields; that is fine and it is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about how repair modules, for both armor and shiels, should work: it makes no sense to me that you get a boost all of a sudden, repairers are working the whole time you turn them on, so the repair amount should be slowly given during the whole process, as long as they are on. And please stop talking about lag, nobody know if this will have any impact on lag or not, so just say if you like the idea or not.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Endemic Aggression Exalted.	Posted - 2009.07.01 20:53:00 - [11] hmm no? current system is fine except active tanking sucks compared to monster buffer?
Neriel Odershank	Posted - 2009.07.01 21:07:00 - [12] Edited by: Neriel Odershank on 01/07/2009 21:07:43 Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn hmm no? current system is fine except active tanking sucks compared to monster buffer? And why not? Your sentence looks like a paradox to me: if active tank sux so much, why don't agree with op idea so to balance things a bit?
Project 001	Posted - 2009.07.01 22:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Neriel Odershank Edited by: Neriel Odershank on 01/07/2009 21:07:43 Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn hmm no? current system is fine except active tanking sucks compared to monster buffer? And why not? Your sentence looks like a paradox to me: if active tank sux so much, why don't agree with op idea so to balance things a bit? The problem with active tanking in pvp has nothing to do with the issues being discussed in this thread. Not supported. Tanking is currently set up to be as lag-free as possible. Anything that causes more possibility of lag is a bad idea.
Neesa Corrinne Stimulus Rote Kapelle	Posted - 2009.07.01 22:56:00 - [14] Yet another proposal without understanding the problem. The problem with active tanking right now has nothing at all to do with how often the shields or armor reppers cycle. The problem with active tanking is that ever since NOS was nerfed, everyone and their grandmother fits racks of neuts. Not to mention the amount of ships that a player will find himself up against in modern EVE is a lot more than what the same player would have come up against when the modules were last modified. When shield boosters and armor reps last saw any changes, the typical fight was 1v1 or 1v3-4. I'm not saying blobs didn't exist three years ago, but they were a lot less prevalent. The amount boosted per cycle would have to receive a boost to keep things on par, but I'm not sure that CCP is even interested in keeping things on par so I wouldn't look for any active tanking boosts anytime soon. ---------------------------------
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Coalition of Free Stars	Posted - 2009.07.02 06:03:00 - [15] I see absolutely no need for this change. The benefits are negligible enough that the player confusion from it alone would outweigh any good. Not supported.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.