EVE Search - Ship HP Increased

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Ship HP Increased

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nafri	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:22:00 - [361] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: drunkenmaster right... the ships are already balanced against each other in terms of structure, with gall having more, min having less etc. as per RP. So lets do a blanket structure increase to all races of 75-100% structure. (ie. the same increase in structure for all) after all, with all structural increases the same, gall will still have the most structure anyway. now with the crap out of the way, onto the meat. I think it should be a 150% increase to all races, split between shield and armour. like so: Caldari 120% shield 30% armor Gallente: 50% shield 100% armor Amarr: 30% shield 120% armour Minmatar: 75% shield 75% armor I have to say I like this. A lot more than the current dev blog proposal. no please not, why would Minmatar need more shield? thy cant shield tank? Even some caldari ships struggle to maintain a decent tank compared to the amarr ( cough damm umbalanced ships thy have) 120% is way too much not tanked HP = useless HP and yeah, i still dont care lot about gank battles aka fleet battles where you only need HP to warp out, thats no PvP in a smaller engagment your unhardened Shield or Armor wont help you at all --> 120% bonus for Caldari, Amarr , 100% bonus for Gallente and only 75% Bonus for Minmatar, and minmatar will get 75% of useless shield HP Wanna fly with me?
Nafri	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:22:00 - [362] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: drunkenmaster right... the ships are already balanced against each other in terms of structure, with gall having more, min having less etc. as per RP. So lets do a blanket structure increase to all races of 75-100% structure. (ie. the same increase in structure for all) after all, with all structural increases the same, gall will still have the most structure anyway. now with the crap out of the way, onto the meat. I think it should be a 150% increase to all races, split between shield and armour. like so: Caldari 120% shield 30% armor Gallente: 50% shield 100% armor Amarr: 30% shield 120% armour Minmatar: 75% shield 75% armor I have to say I like this. A lot more than the current dev blog proposal. no please not, why would Minmatar need more shield? thy cant shield tank? Even some caldari ships struggle to maintain a decent tank compared to the amarr ( cough damm umbalanced ships thy have) 120% is way too much not tanked HP = useless HP and yeah, i still dont care lot about gank battles aka fleet battles where you only need HP to warp out, thats no PvP in a smaller engagment your unhardened Shield or Armor wont help you at all --> 120% bonus for Caldari, Amarr , 100% bonus for Gallente and only 75% Bonus for Minmatar, and minmatar will get 75% of useless shield HP Wanna fly with me?
Shidhe	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:30:00 - [363] I see lots of posts where the percentage increases are fixed to add up to the same amount on shield and armour. Eg +100/+0, +75/+25, +50/+50. This is not necessary, in fact it is unfair! A +100/+0 (with bonus to most used type) beats all the others. The only way to try to make them balanced is to give a mixed bonus a total of more than 100 - eg +85/+40. To labour the point: Take 2 people with red and green pencils: A has 16 red and 4 green. B has 10 red and 10 green. Total, both have 20 pencils. Now give A a +100/+0 red/green bonus and B a +50/+50 bonus. Now A has 36 pencils and B has 30 pencils. Fair? Sorry about the math, and I know that this is a much simpler case than the present problem, but if people put in a completely irrelevant rule about the total precentage bonus, we will never get a fair system.
Shidhe	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:30:00 - [364] I see lots of posts where the percentage increases are fixed to add up to the same amount on shield and armour. Eg +100/+0, +75/+25, +50/+50. This is not necessary, in fact it is unfair! A +100/+0 (with bonus to most used type) beats all the others. The only way to try to make them balanced is to give a mixed bonus a total of more than 100 - eg +85/+40. To labour the point: Take 2 people with red and green pencils: A has 16 red and 4 green. B has 10 red and 10 green. Total, both have 20 pencils. Now give A a +100/+0 red/green bonus and B a +50/+50 bonus. Now A has 36 pencils and B has 30 pencils. Fair? Sorry about the math, and I know that this is a much simpler case than the present problem, but if people put in a completely irrelevant rule about the total precentage bonus, we will never get a fair system.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:33:00 - [365] Originally by: Hygelac Edited by: Hygelac on 21/12/2004 14:34:45 I'm in favour of increasing the longevity of ships in general. I have read science fiction novels in which fleet battles take place over several hours as opposed to the several seconds that combat currently occupies. And I yearn for that sort of intense experience that is not just about reflexes but about stamina and tactics. I've won/lost many a fight because of split-second decisions made in error. I've BEEN in fleet battles which have taken over an hour before. WELL over an hour in some cases. Sure, you're going to have short, sharp close range battles which are over in minutes, but you'll also have long range slow battles like those in p3en at the weekend. It ain't broken as it stands "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:33:00 - [366] Originally by: Hygelac Edited by: Hygelac on 21/12/2004 14:34:45 I'm in favour of increasing the longevity of ships in general. I have read science fiction novels in which fleet battles take place over several hours as opposed to the several seconds that combat currently occupies. And I yearn for that sort of intense experience that is not just about reflexes but about stamina and tactics. I've won/lost many a fight because of split-second decisions made in error. I've BEEN in fleet battles which have taken over an hour before. WELL over an hour in some cases. Sure, you're going to have short, sharp close range battles which are over in minutes, but you'll also have long range slow battles like those in p3en at the weekend. It ain't broken as it stands "As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade"
ElfeGER	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:42:00 - [367] Originally by: TomB Remember before replying; we are looking at problems before we start doing the balance, do not get frustrated at values in the dev blog, its open for posting your thoughts and open discussion on values. ok problems: - no ships to test (fight club or seed markets and give out more money) - no fast skill learning - please reenable the global channel (to allow the small number of players to communicate and/or contact a BH/GM/DEV for bugs/teleport/ships/modules/money/skills)
ElfeGER	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:42:00 - [368] Originally by: TomB Remember before replying; we are looking at problems before we start doing the balance, do not get frustrated at values in the dev blog, its open for posting your thoughts and open discussion on values. ok problems: - no ships to test (fight club or seed markets and give out more money) - no fast skill learning - please reenable the global channel (to allow the small number of players to communicate and/or contact a BH/GM/DEV for bugs/teleport/ships/modules/money/skills)
ripstop	Posted - 2004.12.21 16:07:00 - [369] Amount of hull structure increase should be ship skill lvl related. lvl1 = 20%, lvl5 = 100%. The figures by Drunkenmaster look good but I would suggest a module which allows tweaking of values for energy support for increased shields or armour so that there can be adjustment of the ratio's. This comes in 10% or 20% forms. There would of course be named modules which allow for better versions. For example the new 'Integrity Transitional energy converter I' allows you to make the ratio for Gallente to start as 50S/100A, then switched on moves it to 60S/90A. This allows you to make the caldari ratio start at 120S/30A and move to 130S/20A when switched on. The key thing is that if the module is active when your shields fail..it remains locked in the altered percentage. This means it makes your ship weakness a true achilles heal. I suspect it also has high cap utilisation as well. Its a risky strategy to alter your capacitor utilisation and allow tweaking of armour or shields above the given race values. The Tech II version does 20% shifts.
ripstop	Posted - 2004.12.21 16:07:00 - [370] Amount of hull structure increase should be ship skill lvl related. lvl1 = 20%, lvl5 = 100%. The figures by Drunkenmaster look good but I would suggest a module which allows tweaking of values for energy support for increased shields or armour so that there can be adjustment of the ratio's. This comes in 10% or 20% forms. There would of course be named modules which allow for better versions. For example the new 'Integrity Transitional energy converter I' allows you to make the ratio for Gallente to start as 50S/100A, then switched on moves it to 60S/90A. This allows you to make the caldari ratio start at 120S/30A and move to 130S/20A when switched on. The key thing is that if the module is active when your shields fail..it remains locked in the altered percentage. This means it makes your ship weakness a true achilles heal. I suspect it also has high cap utilisation as well. Its a risky strategy to alter your capacitor utilisation and allow tweaking of armour or shields above the given race values. The Tech II version does 20% shifts.
NoXiD	Posted - 2004.12.21 16:22:00 - [371] Not read most of these other posts but.. why not change the way Ship BP's are so you can research a differnt % for each ship to your liking you have got 150% to play with, you can assign different % to each part of the ship when you research a ship BP so giving the player the choice, and the buyer the option of lots of different setups in % making 1 ship have 100's of possible combinations of shield/armour/struc points
NoXiD	Posted - 2004.12.21 16:22:00 - [372] Not read most of these other posts but.. why not change the way Ship BP's are so you can research a differnt % for each ship to your liking you have got 150% to play with, you can assign different % to each part of the ship when you research a ship BP so giving the player the choice, and the buyer the option of lots of different setups in % making 1 ship have 100's of possible combinations of shield/armour/struc points
ElfeGER	Posted - 2004.12.21 16:29:00 - [373] Edited by: El*ER on 21/12/2004 16:33:07 Edited by: El*ER on 21/12/2004 16:32:49 what about "Small Hellstorm I" on Megathron or Dominix now? -10000 struture hp Mega has 19000 structure without skills - so fit 2 of these for nice ship/pod killing Originally by: NoXiD Not read most of these other posts but.. why not change the way Ship BP's are so you can research a differnt % for each ship to your liking you have got 150% to play with, you can assign different % to each part of the ship when you research a ship BP so giving the player the choice, and the buyer the option of lots of different setups in % making 1 ship have 100's of possible combinations of shield/armour/struc points that would kill the eve database and the market you wouldn't be able to stack ships or trade them on market (all ships are different) that's why you can only buy bpo on market (too many bpc factors ME/PE/Runs)
ElfeGER	Posted - 2004.12.21 16:29:00 - [374] Edited by: El*ER on 21/12/2004 16:33:07 Edited by: El*ER on 21/12/2004 16:32:49 what about "Small Hellstorm I" on Megathron or Dominix now? -10000 struture hp Mega has 19000 structure without skills - so fit 2 of these for nice ship/pod killing Originally by: NoXiD Not read most of these other posts but.. why not change the way Ship BP's are so you can research a differnt % for each ship to your liking you have got 150% to play with, you can assign different % to each part of the ship when you research a ship BP so giving the player the choice, and the buyer the option of lots of different setups in % making 1 ship have 100's of possible combinations of shield/armour/struc points that would kill the eve database and the market you wouldn't be able to stack ships or trade them on market (all ships are different) that's why you can only buy bpo on market (too many bpc factors ME/PE/Runs)
Balgore	Posted - 2004.12.21 17:26:00 - [375] Minmatar ships do shield tank, and that's what they were meant to do. They only armor tank because armor tanking is better at the moment and they have pretty much even mid/low slots to do either one. You can't possibly be saying that any ship with less than 6 mid slots cannot shield tank well...
Balgore	Posted - 2004.12.21 17:26:00 - [376] Minmatar ships do shield tank, and that's what they were meant to do. They only armor tank because armor tanking is better at the moment and they have pretty much even mid/low slots to do either one. You can't possibly be saying that any ship with less than 6 mid slots cannot shield tank well...
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.12.21 17:34:00 - [377] Originally by: Balgore Minmatar ships do shield tank, and that's what they were meant to do. They only armor tank because armor tanking is better at the moment and they have pretty much even mid/low slots to do either one. You can't possibly be saying that any ship with less than 6 mid slots cannot shield tank well... Frankly, you have NOT been flying minnie ships lately, have you? Take the facts: - we need tracking in order to hit. - we need damage to compensate for the lack of tracking. Now ... : - to up tracking, two solutions: low slot mods or tracking computers. Bye bye shield tank. Then the armor tank becomes the only solution, when it is used at all. Afik, minnie ships are the ONLY ships that have to rely on extreme setups in order to be able to deal correct damage. - to up damage: well, cram those low-slots with gyrostabs and forget about armor tanking. Oh wait... capacitator is still crap on minnie ships, so trying to shield tank with this is useless anyway. No wait... the tracking is so bad to we HAVE to use tracking computers on med slots anyway... So you see? Damned if you do Damned if you don't Cheers
jukriamrr	Posted - 2004.12.21 17:34:00 - [378] Originally by: Balgore Minmatar ships do shield tank, and that's what they were meant to do. They only armor tank because armor tanking is better at the moment and they have pretty much even mid/low slots to do either one. You can't possibly be saying that any ship with less than 6 mid slots cannot shield tank well... Frankly, you have NOT been flying minnie ships lately, have you? Take the facts: - we need tracking in order to hit. - we need damage to compensate for the lack of tracking. Now ... : - to up tracking, two solutions: low slot mods or tracking computers. Bye bye shield tank. Then the armor tank becomes the only solution, when it is used at all. Afik, minnie ships are the ONLY ships that have to rely on extreme setups in order to be able to deal correct damage. - to up damage: well, cram those low-slots with gyrostabs and forget about armor tanking. Oh wait... capacitator is still crap on minnie ships, so trying to shield tank with this is useless anyway. No wait... the tracking is so bad to we HAVE to use tracking computers on med slots anyway... So you see? Damned if you do Damned if you don't Cheers
Pottsey	Posted - 2004.12.21 17:50:00 - [379] Edited by: Pottsey on 21/12/2004 17:54:38 What I donÆt want to happen is finding out Gallente are no longer the best passive shield tankers. It seems unfair to take a race that was the best at something for over a year and making it so they are no longer the best. Caldari should have the most shield hitpoints and best active shield boosters. Gallente should have the best passive shield tanking but overall less shield hitpoints then Caldari. Perhaps boost Caldari hitpoints by 100% but boost Gallente shield recharge more by 30% and shield hitpoints by 50%. öbut sadly my first post is too long and noone is bothered to read so much these days... cuz except that you complain about a few numbers which CAN be tuned you bring up nothing yourself which would be a reasonable change..ö. I already posted a reasonable change a while back but I was just pointing out how powerful your setup would have been. When you said ôshield recharge??? mulitply it with the same amount as you would mulitply the shields...ö did you mean make shield recharge faster or slower? I think thatÆs where I got confused. Also you two post donÆt match up and you lost me with your number in the 2nd post. First you said multiply shield recharge by the same as you would shield then you said shield recharge is 10,000 seconds. But 2000 x 15 = 30,000. Did I misunderstand you somewhere? You also picked a Raven thatÆs bad at passive tanking. Run your numbers with a Scorp or Dominix thatÆs when it becomes unbalanced those two ships would become invincible in fact your number make a Scorp more powerful then a Raven. ôall this with one xl shield booster... +60%... base recharge: 31,25hp/sec maximum recharge at 35%: = 78,125 hp/sec with 3 more 10% rechargers we are up to 107,17 hp/secö Well your first post said +80% not +60% for a XL shield booster and what would happen if you swapped out the 3, 10% shield recharges for 3, 15% shield rechargeÆs? Or worse 3 shield relays at 20% or 3 T2 relays at 27.5% each? If 3 of the worst shield rechargeÆs give you 107 hp/sec then the best ones are going give over 500 per sec. Try running your number with a Domi and 7 shield relays T1 or T2 either would be 500 per second I bet and you still have the mid slots for hardeners and the 1 xl shield booster for another 60 or 80% boost. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Pottsey	Posted - 2004.12.21 17:50:00 - [380] Edited by: Pottsey on 21/12/2004 17:54:38 What I donÆt want to happen is finding out Gallente are no longer the best passive shield tankers. It seems unfair to take a race that was the best at something for over a year and making it so they are no longer the best. Caldari should have the most shield hitpoints and best active shield boosters. Gallente should have the best passive shield tanking but overall less shield hitpoints then Caldari. Perhaps boost Caldari hitpoints by 100% but boost Gallente shield recharge more by 30% and shield hitpoints by 50%. öbut sadly my first post is too long and noone is bothered to read so much these days... cuz except that you complain about a few numbers which CAN be tuned you bring up nothing yourself which would be a reasonable change..ö. I already posted a reasonable change a while back but I was just pointing out how powerful your setup would have been. When you said ôshield recharge??? mulitply it with the same amount as you would mulitply the shields...ö did you mean make shield recharge faster or slower? I think thatÆs where I got confused. Also you two post donÆt match up and you lost me with your number in the 2nd post. First you said multiply shield recharge by the same as you would shield then you said shield recharge is 10,000 seconds. But 2000 x 15 = 30,000. Did I misunderstand you somewhere? You also picked a Raven thatÆs bad at passive tanking. Run your numbers with a Scorp or Dominix thatÆs when it becomes unbalanced those two ships would become invincible in fact your number make a Scorp more powerful then a Raven. ôall this with one xl shield booster... +60%... base recharge: 31,25hp/sec maximum recharge at 35%: = 78,125 hp/sec with 3 more 10% rechargers we are up to 107,17 hp/secö Well your first post said +80% not +60% for a XL shield booster and what would happen if you swapped out the 3, 10% shield recharges for 3, 15% shield rechargeÆs? Or worse 3 shield relays at 20% or 3 T2 relays at 27.5% each? If 3 of the worst shield rechargeÆs give you 107 hp/sec then the best ones are going give over 500 per sec. Try running your number with a Domi and 7 shield relays T1 or T2 either would be 500 per second I bet and you still have the mid slots for hardeners and the 1 xl shield booster for another 60 or 80% boost. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Gold Star	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:02:00 - [381] Edited by: Gold Star on 21/12/2004 18:03:08 Poor gall's, If you should reach structur your in trouble anyway, giving 300% aint gonna help you much. So everyone else gets a good boost on the battle front, gall get the crappy end of the stick imo. -------------------------------------------- You can have my gun when you pry it from my paranoid, mentally disturbed, physically-abusive, cold, dead fingers.
Gold Star	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:02:00 - [382] Edited by: Gold Star on 21/12/2004 18:03:08 Poor gall's, If you should reach structur your in trouble anyway, giving 300% aint gonna help you much. So everyone else gets a good boost on the battle front, gall get the crappy end of the stick imo. -------------------------------------------- You can have my gun when you pry it from my paranoid, mentally disturbed, physically-abusive, cold, dead fingers.
Mimicar	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:56:00 - [383] Wouldn't this unintentionally nerf drones? As the drones have to be in the air twice / three times as long. Being in the air three times longer makes them 3 times more likely to loose shield/armor/hull in combat. Should drones also recieve a HP bonus?
Mimicar	Posted - 2004.12.21 18:56:00 - [384] Wouldn't this unintentionally nerf drones? As the drones have to be in the air twice / three times as long. Being in the air three times longer makes them 3 times more likely to loose shield/armor/hull in combat. Should drones also recieve a HP bonus?
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:05:00 - [385] Edited by: Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa on 21/12/2004 19:08:17 Will there be structure hardeners soon aswell ? Edit: And while we are at it.... natural Armour and Structure-recharge.... to balance things out even more.
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:05:00 - [386] Edited by: Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa on 21/12/2004 19:08:17 Will there be structure hardeners soon aswell ? Edit: And while we are at it.... natural Armour and Structure-recharge.... to balance things out even more.
Golonko	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:10:00 - [387] Lets look on that from the other side of the gun... You want to make battles last longer, why dont you just decrease damage of guns/missiles/drones instead of messing with ship HP enough objectivness... Just make all guns act like projectile weps do now - it'll make battles last for hours (yes, im a minmatar pilot )
Golonko	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:10:00 - [388] Lets look on that from the other side of the gun... You want to make battles last longer, why dont you just decrease damage of guns/missiles/drones instead of messing with ship HP enough objectivness... Just make all guns act like projectile weps do now - it'll make battles last for hours (yes, im a minmatar pilot )
Nafri	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:15:00 - [389] Originally by: Balgore Minmatar ships do shield tank, and that's what they were meant to do. They only armor tank because armor tanking is better at the moment and they have pretty much even mid/low slots to do either one. You can't possibly be saying that any ship with less than 6 mid slots cannot shield tank well... ohh please tell me your typhoon shield tank and now, you cant shield tank anything with less then 6 slots for tanking Wanna fly with me?
Nafri	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:15:00 - [390] Originally by: Balgore Minmatar ships do shield tank, and that's what they were meant to do. They only armor tank because armor tanking is better at the moment and they have pretty much even mid/low slots to do either one. You can't possibly be saying that any ship with less than 6 mid slots cannot shield tank well... ohh please tell me your typhoon shield tank and now, you cant shield tank anything with less then 6 slots for tanking Wanna fly with me?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 35 :: 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.