| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reine Jacotey
   |
Posted - 2010.01.06 22:40:00 -
[1]
I envision a new lowslot module type with a two-fold function: Sensor-Absorbant Hull Coating.
First, the module would reduce the ship's signature radius, perhaps 15% for tech 1 and 20% for tech 2 (just to toss some numbers out there). Among the more general effects this would have, this could allow shield-tanking ships the ability to mitigate their bloated sig radius and allow ships like interceptors the ability to "sig radius tank" instead of, or in addition to, speed tanking.
Second, the module would reduce the signal strength of the ship when being scanned by combat scanner probes making the ship harder to scan down. [This could be made redundant if the signal strength of ships to scanner probes were more directly linked to sig radius).
In order for the module to be able to fit on some of the ships that it's intended to be most useful to (like interceptors) it would need very low fitting requirement, perhaps 0 grid and 0 cpu (like overdrive injectors, for example). This can be justified also from a "real life" perspective as stuff like paint generally doesn't require power or computing to operate once installed.
|
mchief117
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 23:40:00 -
[2]
considering this would be more or less paint i dont see why it would need power or proccessing to begin with
|
Meredith Midnight
|
Posted - 2010.01.06 23:57:00 -
[3]
Where's the drawback? Almost all defensive modules have some sort of drawback, especially ones that use no grid/cpu.
- Interceptors already sig tank due to their MWD
bonus.
- Halos already reduce signature radius at expense of lower training speed.
- Unprobeable fits have to give up a significant amount of slots to do so.
I would suggest a shield/armor resist drawback. RP: The paint interferes with shield projection, and when lit aflame, corrodes armor.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
JAFA Trade and Manufacturing Cooperative
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 00:12:00 -
[4]
Yeah, a reduction to defenses would seem to be a fitting tradeoff for reduced sig. I like the idea itself, though, although 30% sig reduction for a module that has no fitting cost might be too beefy. A Claw with four of these things would basically disappear.
======================
Crusades: Security Status |
Allan Sheperd
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 00:20:00 -
[5]
Where's the drawback?
It takes up a low slot? |
d3vo
Isotope Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 00:23:00 -
[6]
Interceptors already have a very low sig radius even with the MWD on. I find it difficult to snipe them. =/
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 00:31:00 -
[7]
not sure we need a sigradius reducing module.
for the signal strength on scanning. it is called <sensortype> backup array I. the lowslot equivalent of the ECCM <sensortype>.
|
Cliffy Byro
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 11:32:00 -
[8]
I can see this being slightly more useful as a rig.
with a drawback on speed or sensor strength.
it should be a fairly high calibration point rig so you can only fit 2 on a ship and no other rigs so people would only use one of these. on their ship or if they are an idiot use two and have empty rig slot.
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 11:38:00 -
[9]
This sounds kind-of familiar...
|
Night Doc
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2010.01.07 15:38:00 -
[10]
correct me if im wrong but i think we haven't seen new modules not attached to new content in the last... 4 years?
and i guess they are happy with the ones there are (probably because the balancing headaches?)... or maybe we will enjoy a new T3 set of modules?
i would like new modules too. this one too.
- Fit EVE to screen |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |