EVE Search - Passive armour regeneration

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Passive armour regeneration

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.22 00:21:00 - [1] Can we please have passive armour regeneration on all ships? The topic has been raised a few times in the past, I know, but I think it's important. Ships should have a network of nano assemblers that just repair armour over time, exactly like the fact that every ship's standard shield generators slowly recharge their shields. This feature would make a real difference to players reliant on armour. I'm not asking for additional modules like the shield power relay (I'm Gallente, I don't have slots to spare anyway...), but I can't be the only armour tanker who feels like it isn't a level playing field.
END3R 101 Amarr Literacy.	Posted - 2010.09.22 00:26:00 - [2] I absolutely agree. Passive shield recharge has been around longer than I have, but armour tanking never shared this feature and there's no good reason why not. It would be a nice modification, and only minor in the grand scheme, if massively belated.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.09.22 00:26:00 - [3] shield ships have recharge, armor ships have higher base resists. diversity is nice for the game, so if you want the shield recharge, fly shield tanking ships. some gallente ships can even field a pretty nice shield tank.
New Davrin	Posted - 2010.09.22 00:48:00 - [4] I feel like the only really solid advantage armour tankers have over shield tankers is that we can deploy tackle and web in our med slots without sacrificing something from our tank. (Though if we want to use a damage mod or two, we obviously do.)
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.22 00:50:00 - [5] Oops, posted with my alt.
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.09.22 00:56:00 - [6] Armor is armor, shield is shield. If you wanna have the benefits of one, then take that one.
Thesis Wo	Posted - 2010.09.22 06:14:00 - [7] I would personally prefer new rigs - one which drastically decreases shield (at ex. 2x) but increases armor by awesome amount (smth like 30-40%) and the second is vice versa. Or maybe the rig which will trade shield capacity for armor resists? Thus armor tankers can have their main buffer of greater size (or greater strength) at the cost of buffer they don't actually need. And the explanation is pretty simple - rigs redirect part of shield generator's power to enhance armor.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei Butterfly Effect Alliance	Posted - 2010.09.22 06:24:00 - [8] Not much we can do, any proposal to balance shield tank would instantly being thrown down by a very vocal group of people that enjoy passive shield as overpowered as it is. Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
Thesis Wo	Posted - 2010.09.22 06:41:00 - [9] But if we won't try to do smth we'll definitely won't get anything.
cheese monkey Vicarious.	Posted - 2010.09.22 06:43:00 - [10] Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Not much we can do, any proposal to balance shield tank would instantly being thrown down by a very vocal group of people that enjoy passive shield as overpowered as it is. agreed that passive tanks are overpowered, but this is not the answer.

IcanhasyouStuff	Posted - 2010.09.22 08:52:00 - [11] Originally by: Thesis Wo But if we won't try to do smth we'll definitely won't get anything. Shield and armor tanks are already pretty well balanced.
Nuts Nougat Perkone	Posted - 2010.09.22 09:22:00 - [12] ATM, armor is already better than shield, mainly due to the fact that there is no slave equivalent for shield. Which I can completely understand. A "slaved" drake would be hilarious for example. This however scales really badly on caps and especially supercaps. Wyvern/Hel are a joke compared to Aeon/Nyx. So no, armor does not need more advantages. ---
Isidore Tailleur Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.09.22 14:59:00 - [13] This would not be balance. But there could be nanotechnology that self-repair the armour very very slowly. Like 20%/hour or somesuch. Which would elevate some of the need to always carry armour rep drones or dock up rep on long solo roams with armour tanked ships...
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2010.09.22 15:13:00 - [14] if you like passive regenertion, tank your shield on shield. If your ship cant, skill one which can. what would be the difference between armor and shield besides of the bar position then? Stop wanting all being the same, sucker!
Bayram Blacklion	Posted - 2010.09.22 15:34:00 - [15] well i fly both types of ships shield and armor tanker ,and tbh its good the way it is, both have their strengh and weaknesses.
Ogogov	Posted - 2010.09.22 19:04:00 - [16] This is a horrible idea. I would like to see armor tanks slightly improved in general (especially in the active tanking dept.) mostly because as it currently stands, Gallente ships in particular are broken due to their gimped agility and mass. But passive armor regeneration? Active armor regeneration is bad enough to explain. I'd rather see armor ships supporting minimal 'regeneration' abilities on the field in favor of heavier buffers/resists. That would differentiate them more from shield setups IMO.
New Davrin	Posted - 2010.09.22 21:15:00 - [17] Actually some of you have misunderstood. I never said I wanted passive armour regeneration to allow armour tankers to build a drake style passive tank. What I said was that I wanted armour to regenerate slowly over time. If I didn't explain that fully, then the implication was that over the course of say, a half hour, your ship would self repair. This would allow people to take plated ships out on longer runs without having to rely on gang mates with repair drones, or a place to stop and repair their ship.
Ruhige Schmerz Valhalla Naval Corp IMPERIAL LEGI0N	Posted - 2010.09.22 22:05:00 - [18] Originally by: cheese monkey Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Not much we can do, any proposal to balance shield tank would instantly being thrown down by a very vocal group of people that enjoy passive shield as overpowered as it is. agreed that passive tanks are overpowered, but this is not the answer. This is why uber passive tanks dominate in pvp. Wait, what?
Nikgah Plz	Posted - 2010.09.22 23:19:00 - [19] Originally by: New Davrin Actually some of you have misunderstood. I never said I wanted passive armour regeneration to allow armour tankers to build a drake style passive tank. What I said was that I wanted armour to regenerate slowly over time. If I didn't explain that fully, then the implication was that over the course of say, a half hour, your ship would self repair. This would allow people to take plated ships out on longer runs without having to rely on gang mates with repair drones, or a place to stop and repair their ship. While I agree with this so soloing is more available to the pilot...the other way to go about this is making armor resists higher.
mchief117	Posted - 2010.09.23 00:12:00 - [20] I dont see why a base repair rate to armor and hull could not be added, it could never be nearly as good as shields but also enough that after 5-10 minutes dependent on class of ship they could heal up. i mean most ships have crew/drones that keep the insides working , why not fix that gaping hole in the wall while there at it

Viribus Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.09.23 01:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Ruhige Schmerz Originally by: cheese monkey Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Not much we can do, any proposal to balance shield tank would instantly being thrown down by a very vocal group of people that enjoy passive shield as overpowered as it is. agreed that passive tanks are overpowered, but this is not the answer. This is why uber passive tanks dominate in pvp. Wait, what? He means buffer. Passive as in "doesn't require player interaction", as opposed to active. It could be passive as in having the biggest buffer possible, or passive as in relying on the recharge of your shields to regenerate damage taken.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.23 02:40:00 - [22] I really am not proposing this as an armour tank answer to passive shield tanks. I don't imagine the regeneration of armour from such a feature making a great deal of difference in a fight(Of course, in very close fights where a small number of HP can decide the outcome it could...) But as I said before, passive regeneration of armour would allow us amour tankers more independence on long trips through hostile territory. Been in a fight? Safe spot until your armour repairs itself. I've been on long trips looking for PvP and spent millions on repairs along the way.
Viribus Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.09.23 02:41:00 - [23] Originally by: Luthair StoneDog I really am not proposing this as an armour tank answer to passive shield tanks. I don't imagine the regeneration of armour from such a feature making a great deal of difference in a fight(Of course, in very close fights where a small number of HP can decide the outcome it could...) But as I said before, passive regeneration of armour would allow us amour tankers more independence on long trips through hostile territory. Been in a fight? Safe spot until your armour repairs itself. I've been on long trips looking for PvP and spent millions on repairs along the way. You should take a look at my thread in this forum and give me your feedback. I think rechargeable cap boosters is the way to go.
Camdelma Gallente THE DISC	Posted - 2010.09.23 08:45:00 - [24] I used to think the currently unused regenerative plating module should do something like what you're suggesting, bringing it more online with what it's name suggests. Now though, I think they would be better modified into something more like a shield boost amp, improving active tanking.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.23 22:19:00 - [25] I just don't think we should need a module for this. It should be an inherent characteristic of our ships. Roleplay-wise... it's the combination of the ship's nano technology, crew and drones making repairs. Gameplay-wise it's the gradual repair of a ship's hull and armour over the course of a period of time.
TharOkha	Posted - 2010.09.24 09:56:00 - [26] What about new module. "shield destabilizer" something like capacitor neutralizer but this module should do -20% recharge rate of targetted ship..
Reicine Ceer	Posted - 2010.09.24 13:30:00 - [27] There seems to be an awful lot of people in this thread that played WoW too long and are freaking out over the lack of a completely balanced and level playing field. This is contrary to what EVE Online is all about (imo). What this seems to boil down to is that people have forgotten; ARMOUR has higher resists and does not gimp pvp, but to be properly effective, generally buffer-tanked, whereas SHIELD has lower resists, WILL recharge slowly over time and to be properly effective, generally active tanked and DOES gimp your pvp. Its a tradeoff that requires more thought than cookie-cutter ships. Having played SW:G (both before and during SOE's horrific attack on the game mechanics), i can say without a hint of hesitation that creating a flat, level playing field does and will make the game boring and break it. Armour is effectively large plates slapped onto a ship to take the punishment thrown at it; shields are a somewhat ethereal component that absorbs damage in an ablative sense and slowly recharges to eke back what has been depleted. Hell, why not just remove shields from all armour-tanking ships altogether? Because thats the SOE route... "Grammatically, the word 'nothing' is a noun, which suggests that it refers to something." - Wikipedia
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.24 17:11:00 - [28] Originally by: Reicine Ceer There seems to be an awful lot of people in this thread that played WoW too long and are freaking out over the lack of a completely balanced and level playing field. This is contrary to what EVE Online is all about (imo). What this seems to boil down to is that people have forgotten; ARMOUR has higher resists and does not gimp pvp, but to be properly effective, generally buffer-tanked, whereas SHIELD has lower resists, WILL recharge slowly over time and to be properly effective, generally active tanked and DOES gimp your pvp. Its a tradeoff that requires more thought than cookie-cutter ships. Having played SW:G (both before and during SOE's horrific attack on the game mechanics), i can say without a hint of hesitation that creating a flat, level playing field does and will make the game boring and break it. Armour is effectively large plates slapped onto a ship to take the punishment thrown at it; shields are a somewhat ethereal component that absorbs damage in an ablative sense and slowly recharges to eke back what has been depleted. Hell, why not just remove shields from all armour-tanking ships altogether? Because thats the SOE route... Be nice if anybody actually read what was suggested. The idea was to allow ships to regenerate their armour after a fight. There wouldn't be any real impact on the ship's ability to tank in combat, as the regeneration would be too slow. There wouldn't be any modules or skills to boost it... it would be a feature designed to allow armour tankers some independence from station repairs/stations for refitting low slots to allow repairs/some form of remote repping.. all of which are currently required to get even a successful plated buffer tank armour fit ready to fight again.
Reicine Ceer	Posted - 2010.09.24 21:14:00 - [29] Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Be nice if anybody actually read what was suggested. The idea was to allow ships to regenerate their armour after a fight. There wouldn't be any real impact on the ship's ability to tank in combat, as the regeneration would be too slow. There wouldn't be any modules or skills to boost it... it would be a feature designed to allow armour tankers some independence from station repairs/stations for refitting low slots to allow repairs/some form of remote repping.. all of which are currently required to get even a successful plated buffer tank armour fit ready to fight again. Indeed i did read what you wrote. Please re-read my reply as an appropriate response. Also, what hp/sec are you considering? Anything above 5 would give armour tankers ANOTHER advantage over shield tanking ships, and anything from 5 or below makes it effectively useless as the time taken to 'heal' a buffer armour tanking ship would be... months! "Grammatically, the word 'nothing' is a noun, which suggests that it refers to something." - Wikipedia
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.24 21:53:00 - [30] Originally by: Reicine Ceer Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Be nice if anybody actually read what was suggested. The idea was to allow ships to regenerate their armour after a fight. There wouldn't be any real impact on the ship's ability to tank in combat, as the regeneration would be too slow. There wouldn't be any modules or skills to boost it... it would be a feature designed to allow armour tankers some independence from station repairs/stations for refitting low slots to allow repairs/some form of remote repping.. all of which are currently required to get even a successful plated buffer tank armour fit ready to fight again. Indeed i did read what you wrote. Please re-read my reply as an appropriate response. Also, what hp/sec are you considering? Anything above 5 would give armour tankers ANOTHER advantage over shield tanking ships, and anything from 5 or below makes it effectively useless as the time taken to 'heal' a buffer armour tanking ship would be... months! Well no, your response was based on your mistaken assumption that I was trying to get an armour version of passive shield tanking. But it's fairly easy to dismiss your "Anything above 5 would give armour tankers ANOTHER advantage over shield tanking ships, and anything from 5 or below makes it effectively useless" point as nonsense. You've put an arbitrary tipping point in there. At 5 HP per second, it would take a little more than half an hour to regenerate 10000 hp. I actually wouldn't mind if there was a game mechanic where your armour wouldn't regenerate at all if it was taking damage. Maybe there could be a timed recovery where your ship would start self repairing if you received no armour damage for 5 minutes.

Marak Mocam	Posted - 2010.09.24 23:21:00 - [31] I fly Gallente armor tank fitted ships all the time too. I've flown shield tanked and the different benefits/detriments of each add value to the game that this could cause issues with. Passive armor regen could cause a lot of issues and would change tactical thinking of post-combat situations. You think it would help armor tankers but try shield tanks that now also regenerate armor damage for free. "I need repairs, where's a station?" versus "I need repairs, we'll wait". If it's post combat regen then perhaps just request extending what repair paste can be used on to include armor and hull damage. That shouldn't annoy anyone really -- the stuff is expensive enough as cargo/costs wise but there are situations a player might be willing to expend it when they don't/won't have access to a station for a while (wormholes, nullsec... whatever). That would increase the value/versatility of paste but not in a way that would grant repairs for free to those that cannot repair that type of damage.
Otocinclus Minmatar Project Nemesis The 0rphanage	Posted - 2010.09.24 23:39:00 - [32] WTB armor power relays, armor rechargers, and core defense armor purgers
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.24 23:55:00 - [33] "I need repairs, where's a station?" versus "I need repairs, we'll wait". Yeh.. that's the point.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.09.25 00:03:00 - [34] Originally by: Luthair StoneDog "I need repairs, where's a station?" versus "I need repairs, we'll wait". Yeh.. that's the point. shakes head this is an MMO. multi player. team play. "I need repairs, does anyone have a remote rep or some armor bots?" prepared people will always be better at this game.
SGT FUNYOUN Gallente	Posted - 2010.09.25 14:43:00 - [35] Buy a Damage Control 2; Fit Astronautics rigs; fly faster. Nuff said. Yargh. I be SGT Funyoun. King of the Pirates!!!
Reicine Ceer	Posted - 2010.09.25 16:40:00 - [36] As all is said and done, with this suggestion (whether instant recharge or delayed via combat action), there would then be no point in differing between shields and armour; again, the SOE 'lets just mash everything together to make it as simple, child-like and brain-deadening as WoW' course of action. And the 5hp/sec taking 'years' was quite clearly a comedic exaggeration to further my stance that there's just no point! "Grammatically, the word 'nothing' is a noun, which suggests that it refers to something." - Wikipedia
Invictra Atreides Caldari Ninja's Anonymous	Posted - 2010.09.27 11:56:00 - [37] Edited by: Invictra Atreides on 27/09/2010 11:57:30 OMG ppl read the whole post .... He is only saying to have passive regeneration of armors and no mods or modules that boost that To have 5 armor/s = 3600 Armor in 1h Are ppl rly thinking that 3600 Armor makes a difference on a BS ? We all know that passive shields are useless without mods/modules to boost them. I give a +1 to the idea. Lets have the armor regen but without the modules/mods to boost those!
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.27 18:13:00 - [38] Originally by: Invictra Atreides Edited by: Invictra Atreides on 27/09/2010 11:57:30 OMG ppl read the whole post .... He is only saying to have passive regeneration of armors and no mods or modules that boost that To have 5 armor/s = 3600 Armor in 1h Are ppl rly thinking that 3600 Armor makes a difference on a BS ? We all know that passive shields are useless without mods/modules to boost them. I give a +1 to the idea. Lets have the armor regen but without the modules/mods to boost those! Somebody read it? Hehe, thanks for the support. Though 5 armour hp per second regeneration in an hour is 18000, but you are completely correct, without mods to boost it, it would be useless in a battle situation... it is simply an idea to allow armoured ships a bit more longevity for 'the next fight'.
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.09.27 18:33:00 - [39] When I see Shield RR gangs running around more than I see Armor RR gangs, Then I will agree with the OP that armor needs to be looked at. Shield Vs Armor is not balanced right now but it is close, who wants a RR 'Baddon gang with slaves and 400k effective HP's with passive armor regain? Sounds fun and totally overpowered
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.27 19:33:00 - [40] Originally by: Meeko Atari When I see Shield RR gangs running around more than I see Armor RR gangs, Then I will agree with the OP that armor needs to be looked at. Shield Vs Armor is not balanced right now but it is close, who wants a RR 'Baddon gang with slaves and 400k effective HP's with passive armor regain? Sounds fun and totally overpowered Also not what was proposed.

Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.09.27 20:35:00 - [41] Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Originally by: Meeko Atari When I see Shield RR gangs running around more than I see Armor RR gangs, Then I will agree with the OP that armor needs to be looked at. Shield Vs Armor is not balanced right now but it is close, who wants a RR 'Baddon gang with slaves and 400k effective HP's with passive armor regain? Sounds fun and totally overpowered Also not what was proposed. I read it. Just call it what it is... passive armor regain, the same thing as passive shield regain but in YOUR scenario it will only help after a fight no modules to amplify it...right? How is this any different from the only real advantage shields have over armor? (minus the fail fit passive shield drake and Myrm) You want to repair armor in space, there is a module for that, you don't want to fit that module, there are drones for that, you don't want to carry armor rep drones, get some RR buddies.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.27 21:49:00 - [42] Originally by: Meeko Atari Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Originally by: Meeko Atari When I see Shield RR gangs running around more than I see Armor RR gangs, Then I will agree with the OP that armor needs to be looked at. Shield Vs Armor is not balanced right now but it is close, who wants a RR 'Baddon gang with slaves and 400k effective HP's with passive armor regain? Sounds fun and totally overpowered Also not what was proposed. I read it. Just call it what it is... passive armor regain, the same thing as passive shield regain but in YOUR scenario it will only help after a fight no modules to amplify it...right? How is this any different from the only real advantage shields have over armor? (minus the fail fit passive shield drake and Myrm) You want to repair armor in space, there is a module for that, you don't want to fit that module, there are drones for that, you don't want to carry armor rep drones, get some RR buddies. Haha, the only real advantage of shields over armour is passive regeneration? You want me to dignify that with a response? Yes, in my scenario, the passive regeneration of armour would only have a real impact after a fight. Of course there are drones, modules and RR buddies to be had to heal your armour. There are similar methods of shield restoration, and yet you have a passive regeneration rate as well. The fact is, any plate armoured ship cut off from friends in hostile territory after a fight is in trouble. Shielded ships, much less so, because after a reasonably short while, they have their hitpoints back. If you actually look at any of the numbers that have been discussed in the thread, you'd see that over the timescale of a battle, the proposed regeneration rate would mean practically nothing (as ships could wait up to two hours for the restoration of all their armour HP).
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.09.27 21:53:00 - [43] Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Haha, the only real advantage of shields over armour is passive regeneration? You want me to dignify that with a response? Yes, in my scenario, the passive regeneration of armour would only have a real impact after a fight. Of course there are drones, modules and RR buddies to be had to heal your armour. There are similar methods of shield restoration, and yet you have a passive regeneration rate as well. The fact is, any plate armoured ship cut off from friends in hostile territory after a fight is in trouble. Shielded ships, much less so, because after a reasonably short while, they have their hitpoints back. If you actually look at any of the numbers that have been discussed in the thread, you'd see that over the timescale of a battle, the proposed regeneration rate would mean practically nothing (as ships could wait up to two hours for the restoration of all their armour HP). and you still ignore that armor tanks get higher base resists. we really dont need to make armor and shield tank the same. if you want passive recharge, fit shield tanks and live with our downsides. you cant have both.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.27 22:02:00 - [44] Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Haha, the only real advantage of shields over armour is passive regeneration? You want me to dignify that with a response? Yes, in my scenario, the passive regeneration of armour would only have a real impact after a fight. Of course there are drones, modules and RR buddies to be had to heal your armour. There are similar methods of shield restoration, and yet you have a passive regeneration rate as well. The fact is, any plate armoured ship cut off from friends in hostile territory after a fight is in trouble. Shielded ships, much less so, because after a reasonably short while, they have their hitpoints back. If you actually look at any of the numbers that have been discussed in the thread, you'd see that over the timescale of a battle, the proposed regeneration rate would mean practically nothing (as ships could wait up to two hours for the restoration of all their armour HP). and you still ignore that armor tanks get higher base resists. we really dont need to make armor and shield tank the same. if you want passive recharge, fit shield tanks and live with our downsides. you cant have both. I'm not ignoring that armour gets a higher base resist. Are you ignoring that any means to boost your armour HP makes your spaceship slower? If you want to talk about random buffs and nerfs that apply to each type of not dying when people shoot you, that's fine, it still doesn't have any particular impact. As I've said multiple times, I don't want armour and shields to be the same. I want my armour to regenerate slowly after it's been damaged. I am not even asking for armour to regenerate at the same rate as shields... I just want it to do it.
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.09.27 22:38:00 - [45] I just want it to do it. I think i found your problem, you want something to work the way YOU want it to. Shields Vs. Armor is not broken, live with your choice.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2010.09.27 22:48:00 - [46] Originally by: Meeko Atari I just want it to do it. I think i found your problem, you want something to work the way YOU want it to. rofl. For the reasons supplied, yes I do. You're failing quite marvellously to get past the fact that I'm not asking for anything you think I'm asking for.
Rahnim	Posted - 2010.09.27 23:03:00 - [47] i support a small passive armor regen, (anything below those 5 armor HP / sec after combat has been over for more than 5 mins.) It wouldnt make armor tankers overpowered in any way vs shield tankers, specially since it only should do it out of combat.
Zero Income	Posted - 2010.09.27 23:05:00 - [48] Show me a shield tanking commandship that can have 500k+ effective hp and i will fully support this. (btw the passive armor tanking command ship that can do this is one of the amarr ones fully buffed)
Meeko Atari	Posted - 2010.09.27 23:15:00 - [49] Originally by: Luthair StoneDog Originally by: Meeko Atari I just want it to do it. I think i found your problem, you want something to work the way YOU want it to. rofl. For the reasons supplied, yes I do. You're failing quite marvellously to get past the fact that I'm not asking for anything you think I'm asking for. Do you not want "Passive Armor Regain" ( just like the title of your post ) If so... You have not made a great argument about why armor tanks need this feature besides " I want it to " And in case you didn't notice, shields regain on armor tanks as well
Zan Shiro	Posted - 2010.09.27 23:23:00 - [50] is it that hard to find a logi for your roams....or to take away some dps and pack a remote repper or repair drones? Spider repping....its not just for CA's and plexes lol. Should be happy you have it....shield transfer is broken in comparison. Yes shields can regen....you have to live for that to happen though. Shields go down...most shield tankers are pretty much done since armor and structure is weak as hell.

Rahnim	Posted - 2010.09.28 00:01:00 - [51] the reasoning for this would be for solo pvp, in long time deployment with your armor buffered fit. so you could regen armor slowly over several hours. without having to fly all the way to high sec again.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.09.28 00:03:00 - [52] Originally by: Rahnim the reasoning for this would be for solo pvp, in long time deployment with your armor buffered fit. so you could regen armor slowly over several hours. without having to fly all the way to high sec again. maybe it should hint you that a pure passive armor tank is not a good idea for solo pvp? nobody with a bit of brain would expect that armor buffer tanks would work on long term roams.
Zan Shiro	Posted - 2010.09.28 00:49:00 - [53] Originally by: darius mclever Originally by: Rahnim the reasoning for this would be for solo pvp, in long time deployment with your armor buffered fit. so you could regen armor slowly over several hours. without having to fly all the way to high sec again. maybe it should hint you that a pure passive armor tank is not a good idea for solo pvp? nobody with a bit of brain would expect that armor buffer tanks would work on long term roams. its just easier to recode the game But +1, solo pvp, active tank if roaming far from a station. Minny ships great for this, highly recommend them. Projectiles don't use cap (more juice for the repper/booster depending on ship). Speed tank nice since only thing better than a good tank to take a hit...is to move fast enough to not get hit as hard. Neut in highs not too bad an idea if you happen to like up close and personal with AC's.
AstarothPrime	Posted - 2010.09.28 06:25:00 - [54] Edited by: AstarothPrime on 28/09/2010 06:26:19 Originally by: Luthair StoneDog The idea was to allow ships to regenerate their armour after a fight. Agreed -> I would vote for passive regeneration while in station. Let it be dependent on the armor repairer fitted to the ship, but with some kind of nasty bonus (such as 5x repair rate). For example -> if you fit 50 dps armor rep, you would heal 250 dmg / sec while docked up in station. I just hate going into armor on my drake. I usually fly it with nasty red gauge for days before I fit some kind of repper and decide to repair it. And paying ~3M ISK to rep the armor in station is like . I can only imagine the dull job of repairing on high buffer armor tanked ships. I.
Viribus Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore	Posted - 2010.09.28 07:39:00 - [55] The idea isn't to make everything "the same". Shields and armor still differ in important ways, like what is penalized by the tank (sig/mobility), what is sacrificed for the tank in terms of fitting (CPU/grid, and tackle/damage) both would have their own advantages and disadvantages except one point: - Shield buffers are ubiquitous in solo and small gang pvp due to not needing any outside support to maintain This hugely limits the fits that are "acceptable" for that kind of PVP and in turn hurts variation in combat. Hey, isn't that what everyone's whining will be lost if armor regens over time? With an armor buffer after a fight where you can't dock-up you have to wait on grid while some vexor's 5 small repair drones or someone's SAR slowly repairs you. A drake or cerb or vaga can go on with the roam after a fight but as soon as the corp pariah brings along an armor tank everyone has to sit around on grid for five minutes while the idiot who took a 1600mm Myrmidon on a roam gets repped up at the cost of his fleetmate's drone space and high slots. If CCP made it so armor began regenerating similar to shields but only ten minutes after it last took damage the function of armor and shield tanks in combat remain the same but they're on logistically equal footing, which in turn allows greater variety in the ships and fittings one normally sees in long-range small-gang or solo roams. Right now it's just Vagas, Curses, Cynabals, Drams, and those FOTM buffer-tanked Sleipnirs as far as the eye can see. Yawn. Note: I'm not suggesting those ships are popular solo/smallgang ships only because they're buffer tanked, but there are many good ships with similar desirable characteristics (like good range and mobility) that go overlooked because they need outside assistance to maintain their tank and are generally a burden on their fleetmates because of that.
Allestin Villimar Zebra Corp	Posted - 2010.09.28 08:04:00 - [56] They should apply it as an effect to the "Regenerative plating" modules... ...in bed.
Rhinanna Minmatar Volition Cult The Volition Cult	Posted - 2010.09.28 10:14:00 - [57] 1 spare high in the fleet with an armour repper makes armour take the same time or less to rep than shields without a repper. People seem to forget that a buffer tanked ship that doesn't have recharge boosters (SPRs e.t.c.) will still take 5-10 mins to recover 100% shields. What I would suggest is a 'recovery' mode. Basically this would have several affects. 1. Takes 30 seconds to enter or leave recovery mode. 2. All modules become unuseable and disabled. Damage control been the one exception. 3. Armour starts repairing at 100hp/sec. 4. Armour resists reduced to zero including base resists (DC bonus will still apply) 5. Sheilds disabled. 6. Max speed 1/10 normal. 7. Drones will only function in a FoF mode (they will go for anything hostile that attacks you but won't be directable) 8. Any fleet e.t.c. bonuses will be lost and ship won't put out any bonuses as if docked. 9. When emerging from recovery mode shields and cap will be at 100%. 10. Not available to caps or supercaps or anything else with a jump drive, or increase duration for ships with jump drive (since they also have to powerdown the jump drive) and to stop it been used to speed up jumps. 11. Repairing with nanite paste can be done normally. -The sword is only as sharp as the one who wields it. Drenzul (My normal internet tag)
wizard87	Posted - 2010.09.28 10:24:00 - [58] I would support this if it say suggested armour platings (The non-energized kind) such as the regenerative (the %HP increase plating) plating granted a slow regenrative effect - combined with slightly faster effects for using the (non-energized) adaptive platings. This means you could have lower overall resists and total hp using platings that regenrate slowly, or the current higher energized resists plus armour plates that dont regenrate.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente Wormhole XXXtreme	Posted - 2010.09.28 10:48:00 - [59] See.. this is why I like the ideas forum. :) You come up with a sketch of an idea, and other people run with it. I like the idea that it might be something that applies to nano plating modules.
Luthair StoneDog Gallente Wormhole XXXtreme	Posted - 2010.09.28 10:52:00 - [60] Originally by: AstarothPrime paying ~3M ISK to rep the armor in station is like . I can only imagine the dull job of repairing on high buffer armor tanked ships. Ahaha :D Try doing it after every single fight. I really want the people arguing against it to understand... this isn't a combat based suggestion, it is purely logistical in nature.

Alara IonStorm Agent-Orange	Posted - 2010.09.28 11:10:00 - [61] I am willing to pay to keep my Sniper battleship it's shiniest! -- Alara's Law! As an online discussion on EVE ships grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Dominix approaches 1
GavinCapacitor	Posted - 2010.09.28 16:36:00 - [62] I think this entire thing would go away if you could let your drones target you. Carry around one remote armor bot. Also we need hull repair drones.
Thesis Wo	Posted - 2010.09.28 19:19:00 - [63] Originally by: GavinCapacitor I think this entire thing would go away if you could let your drones target you. Carry around one remote armor bot. Also we need hull repair drones. +1 for your suggestion. It's very strange that you can't order drones to repair your ship. There was such topic some days ago but it sunk down.
kongking wang	Posted - 2010.09.28 19:35:00 - [64] give armour primery users passive nanite repair drones. due to the nature of this ability passive shield regen must be turned off howether. an easy way to do this is to make all current armour repair systems reduce all passive shield repair to 0, but dependant on meta they should increase pasive nanite drone repair. larger module = larger regen. scaled right this would work effectively. pro's - you get arm regen cons - no shield replen means once it is depleted shield is gone until repped
Luthair StoneDog Gallente Wormhole XXXtreme	Posted - 2010.09.28 19:45:00 - [65] The idea of giving drones the ability to target your own ship is interesting, and I don't see why they can't, but it doesn't really help with this issue. You see, in the scenario, you've suffered damage and are unable to rely on gang assistance to rep your ship, as they or their drones have been destroyed. In fact you've more than likely suffered the loss of some or all of your own drones. This leaves us somewhat at square one.


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.