EVE Search - Semi Organic / Crystalline Armor Modules for Passive Armor Regen

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Semi Organic / Crystalline Armor Modules for Passive Armor Regen

» 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)
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 6	Posted - 2012.08.18 05:47:00 - [31] - Quote I do wish to throw a curve ball into this discussion if that is alright with all assembled. Has anyone considered if the idea of a module is a little to overpowered maybe giving a flat bonus to certain ships intended only to armor tank that would regen a small amount of armor points every so often? I will not speculate on numbers but I think it would allow for some interesting possibilities.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 6	Posted - 2012.08.18 05:48:00 - [32] - Quote Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: alternative: instead of passive regen, organic hulls require biomass supplies to start regrowing their shells, like the ancillary shield booster only instead of cap boosters, they'd be cans filled with slaves or finally giving a use to corpses
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 1513	Posted - 2012.08.18 05:49:00 - [33] - Quote NO. YOU USE SLAVES DAMNIT
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 6	Posted - 2012.08.18 05:53:00 - [34] - Quote
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 6	Posted - 2012.08.18 06:01:00 - [35] - Quote tankus2 wrote: ok, in seriousness with the OP, I have this to suggest: it would be a low-slot module that has a limit of one per ship (like a damage control). Unlike a damage control, it won't have anything to do with shields and instead focus on both armor and hull. Basically, it would passively grant 7.5% armor hitpoints/ 2% hull hitpoints per second while it is activated. Going off the basis of shield's recharge being based off of a percentage instead of a flat rate, and that percentages make them effective regardless what ship they're fitted on (size wise) are the reasons why I've gone with them. I'd also like to note that these percentages are basically a placeholder until a better one could be generated (perhaps though testing). I was at first going with 5% armor regen but that sounded too small (I also considered having it give a 1% or 0.5% shield regen bonus, but then thought that would make it too much like a damage control, and shields already get lots of help so it can just go away for now), though 10% sounded too large. At any rate, what do ya'll think (and sorry for possible thread hijack, I just love ideas!) Sadly requiring the need for activation would negate the entire intent.
Herping yourDerp Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 639	Posted - 2012.08.18 06:11:00 - [36] - Quote whether or not we need passive armor tanking is debatible but something does need to be done Shield tanking options - buffer, active, speed, passive, ASB Armor tanking options - Buffer, active, you can't passive, you can kinda speed tank but any sort or real armor tank slows you down, and there is no ASB style armor module. the utility midslot argument isn't all that good, when you consider the fact that you have so many mids on shield tanked ships, and you can just throw on an invul LSEII and rig it for moar shield. the low slots for shield tanked ships only really need a DCU and the rest is damage mods or nanos. I would much rather see a ASB style armor rep module, something that reps huge amounts of damage with cap boosters and has the reload times like asb. this would also be good because almost all active armor tanks need 2 reps to be remotely viable in PVE, PVP it would let active tanked ships have more action.
A Soporific Old Man Johnson's Bakery Delivery Service 37	Posted - 2012.08.18 06:59:00 - [37] - Quote Really, I want Armor Tankers to go MORE active than active tanks. There are fewer ways to use armor than shields (although I would classify speed tanks as something altogether different than either Armor and Shield tanking, and I would include ECM as a different kind of tank as well) which is a problem. The thing is that making Armor more like Shields shouldn't be the way forward. Instead of the passive shield tanks proclivity to, well, passivity, I would like to see options that require more action, more thought. I want people to ask themselves if they should turn off their tank altogether, or maybe switch scripts. So, no, I don't like the notion of "blowing off" of plates via a high slot item. I think that the speed/hit point trade off is an effective one, and can readily be explained by shunting energy between the capacitor and the propulsion systems although the fluff is just fluff. I wouldn't mind something that can be modified with scripts, either. It doesn't even have to be a script that boosts just something tanky. I would love to see armor hardeners or active plates that will trade their primary function for ECCM or tracking bonuses instead. I want to make people choose between tank and ultility in the heat of battle. I want people to turn off their tank in the middle of battle and have that be the right choice (like, to get under the guns of a larger adversary or to get the extra bit of tracking that makes the difference between hits and misses). If shields are fire and forget then armor should be all about the skill shot.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 07:26:00 - [38] - Quote I should clarify as to the nature of my last response regarding it being active. I meant the module in question for a passive regen. Simply put if you have to activate then its basically a regular armor repper. That being said I do recognize that even with a passive ability active reppers would also be strongly desire. But imagine if you could offset the need for two reppers for armor tanks by having some passive armor repair and the active repair.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 07:27:00 - [39] - Quote Kentren wrote: I should clarify as to the nature of my last response regarding it being active. I meant the module in question for a passive regen. Simply put if you have to activate then its basically a regular armor repper. That being said I do recognize that even with a passive ability active reppers would also be strongly desire. But imagine if you could offset the need for two reppers for armor tanks by having some passive armor repair and the active repair. Or the ability as I did suggest that the ships have the ability possibly added straight to armor specific ships.
Antal Marius No Bullshit Jokers Wild. 21	Posted - 2012.08.18 07:48:00 - [40] - Quote I like the idea of it being percentage based (5% max), but limited to one per hull like the DCU, and to negate the OP possibility, it also reduces the total armour EHP amount by a percent that is greater overall then the regen amount (Something like 10%?). In addition to the standard reduction in speed.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 08:42:00 - [41] - Quote Antal Marius wrote: I like the idea of it being percentage based (5% max), but limited to one per hull like the DCU, and to negate the OP possibility, it also reduces the total armour EHP amount by a percent that is greater overall then the regen amount (Something like 10%?). In addition to the standard reduction in speed. Negating my possiblity? I did mention or at least intended to make it clear that as things go it would need a negative aspect. Like taking more dmg depending what you looking at (ie reduced resistances) or in your case reduced total armor.
Antal Marius No Bullshit Jokers Wild. 21	Posted - 2012.08.18 09:30:00 - [42] - Quote Kentren wrote: Antal Marius wrote: I like the idea of it being percentage based (5% max), but limited to one per hull like the DCU, and to negate the OP possibility, it also reduces the total armour EHP amount by a percent that is greater overall then the regen amount (Something like 10%?). In addition to the standard reduction in speed. Negating my possiblity? I did mention or at least intended to make it clear that as things go it would need a negative aspect. Like taking more dmg depending what you looking at (ie reduced resistances) or in your case reduced total armor. My "OP" was meant as overpowered, not referencing the opening post. Sorry about the confusion =P
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 10:00:00 - [43] - Quote My bad sorry.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 11:23:00 - [44] - Quote I was thinking about this and all the possibilities and the negatives. And I figured if this were to be implemented I imagine it could be like a totally new type of armor requiring a new skill and training. And yes to those of you it would require a negative as it is a little overpowered. (that's if its a module) If however the idea of it being a ship passive skill now that's a whole new can of worms. I would encourage people willing to put forth ideas on how such a thing would be incorporated into the existing eve universe. I would love to hear specific ship types that would be recommended to have it if it were possible. As for modules please feel free to suggest existing modules and possible changes for it to be this. I would love to hear the responses.
serras bang Lucien Coven 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 13:40:00 - [45] - Quote dont need passive armour regen you shjould feel lucky from your new shifting resistsancy mod witch shields dont have.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.18 14:38:00 - [46] - Quote serras bang wrote: dont need passive armour regen you shjould feel lucky from your new shifting resistsancy mod witch shields dont have. You statement is acknowledged but ignored thanks.
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.08.18 15:11:00 - [47] - Quote I think an organic wandering around the ship repairing things would be fine.. why don't you hire one? .. ..alternatively, there is already nanite repair paste to repair modules and the like, and another of other feasible fictional, and some realistic ideas to make this plausible. The point is, it doesn't have to be fast; just a means of repairing arnor while out in the darker regions of space. There's no reason it couldn't function equally well on a shield tanked ships armor if it cam to that too. It might even make the armor buffer tank a little better. Every tank type has it's weakness. Armor never regens and requires massive Cap to sustain reppers for it; there isn't really a passive armor fit aside from the buffer tank, and maybe there shouldn't be. Shield Buffer passive regens over time and really only has the weakness that it's maybe a little too easy to melt and sometimes very hard to fill the resist holes. Also, you need to train a skill to 5 to keep damage from bleeding through to armor. Then you have to account for the need to choke out your mids to get a tank or sacrifice your tank to get a mids, or the fact that... ..actually, why are we talking about buffing armor again? The only other weakness in an armor tank is the challenge for space when looking at more armor or more dps; it is very easy to balance between the two and seldom requires a lot of thought. Shields are a frickin nightmare. I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Fleet Warpsujarento Caldari's Pride - Factional Warfare Cadet School 153	Posted - 2012.08.18 15:46:00 - [48] - Quote I like the idea of simply being able to apply nanite paste to repair armor damage.
tankus2 The Peace Keepers Guardian Knights Citizens 55	Posted - 2012.08.18 18:51:00 - [49] - Quote have an armor repper that has a higher cycle time that uses a lot of cap unless stuffed with nanite repair paste? on another, mostly covered note, a DCU only has teh negatives of needing one GJ to activate (which it ticks once to a invul field's three activations), requires 15 cpu and 1 MW plus a low slot. Oh, and shouldn't forget that only one can be on a ship at the same time. Yet, what do we get? 12.5% shield/ 15% armor/ 60% hull resists omni Where the science gets done
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.08.18 23:03:00 - [50] - Quote Fleet Warpsujarento wrote: I like the idea of simply being able to apply nanite paste to repair armor damage. Would be nice wouldn't it. :) I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.08.18 23:45:00 - [51] - Quote My earlier post was sort of disorganized and maybe a bit violently opposed to Shield Tanking set ups, so I'll try again. Shield Tanks: ~ Require Tactical Shield Manipulation (4x) skill at level 5 to prevent damage from bleeding through the shields. Plus side is training this allows use of other modules depending on the level trained. ~ Have multiple different mods and set-ups. This isn't really always a plus as it complicates things and each module type is intended to overcome a weakness in the shields ability to mitigate or absorb incoming damage. ~ Have passive Regen. to one degree or another, meaning they can recharge over time and between battles, or even in battles. Most ships unfortunately, don't have particularly good passive Regen. The ones that do still require additional modules to make them capable of sustaining Shield Recharge in the heat of battle. ~ Have gaping holes in their resistances on most standard set-ups, and with exception to Tech2 Minmatar ships, in general. ~ Require both Mid-slot and Low-Slot modules to make a truly effective Shield Tank of any variety. Unfortunately, this means that solo shield tanks are often impractical, if not entirely useless, depending on the ship and pilot skills. ~ For large Fleets, shield tanked set-ups can offer a very effective backbone for the fleet provided they are used right and do not focus on DPS. ~ Can be tanked in a variety of different methods; from Active Cap req. Tanks, to Passive Regen and Omni tanks, to Buffer Tanks, and even Charged active Tanks with recent advances in Shield modules. That actually gives them 4 different means of tanking; the last of which is the only one effective in both solo and fleet PvP on a variety of ships. Armor Tanks: ~ Have Active and Buffer Tanks available. ~ Primarily Low-Slot Modules, with exception to some Capacitor Modules. ~ Limited variety in fitting, one-size-fits-all for both Active and Buffer fits individually. Uncomplicated. ~ Relatively good, and much more effective, base resistances. ~ Easy to fill in resistance holes for the most part, with a limited number of modules. ~ Require multiple Armor Reps to make a sustainable active tank. Pretty serious drawback here, even if it is the only real weakness of armor fits. ~ Works well on a variety of ships, and particularly well on those ships intended to rely on it. ~ Solo or Fleet PvP oriented, and capable of doing both equally well with the same fit if it's a good one. The same applies to PvE, in that a properly tanked armor fit should transition easily between the 3 types of combat without any real drawback. ~ No passive Regen. and no modules which provide it, despite the fact that Gallente vessels are organic in nature, (including their armor), and mechanics and ship equipment intended for the purpose should be capable of administering at least some repairs. Personally, I'd say a ship should be able to repair at least 10-25% of damage it has sustained, or at least be able to repair up to 25% of it's armor and Structure without the need of another module. So basically, that means a ship dropped into structure--with no armor left--that survives a battle should be able to regen. 25% of that armor over a period of time, and should it have sustained reasonable structural damage, the capability to repair some of that damage over time should be available too. There should be some material consumption required for the Structure of course, and armor should require at least a steady supply of nanites or something. The only real question is, "What?" and, "How much?" Should it be reasonable to expect a ship to repair that damage in battle? Probably not if it's in Structure. If it's just armor, then--slow as it might be--there should be a continuous repair occuring whether it has any effect or not with regard to the battle. Outside of battle, it should be reasonable to expect a ship to repair at least some damage over time. Should we assume all ships have a supply of repair materials on board, and that those materials take up space in a cargo hold we have no access to and can't see? Probably. So, yeah, I suppose it isn't a bad idea, and reasonable to expect that no modules are necessary, that it should be on all ships, (though some--like Gallente vessels--might have a more effective ability to repair damage), and even that it could repair damage to above 25% threshold and no more than up to 90% of full armor or structure. Assume that anything over 90% is inaccessible, and below a certain level of structure repairs just cannot be made without some other means of managing those repairs, (i.e: onboard systems and technicians just don't cut it), and even that any repairs once the armor has dropped below 10% in battle just cannot be done. Of course, that might all mean for a lot of coding, so what we really have to ask is, "is it practical?" and, "would it be worth it if it was?" Personally, I think it would be worth it, and certainly--being all encompassing with regard to ship types and fits--not game breaking or likely to cause balance issues or even complicate things further. Actually, it might be safe to assume that repairs couldn't be sustained in battle, (and probably much easier to code), while still being a good change and helpful in those particular circumstances where you really need it. What ship doesn't manage repairs while it's limping home, or along its way, in modern science-fiction fantasy? I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Lavitakus Bromier The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2012.08.18 23:47:00 - [52] - Quote Just make nanite reactive armor. Then you have a passive armor repair. Bio and crystal? I don't wanna shoot ships made of regeneration crystals. And if I wanted to shoot living armor ships I'd play star craft and kill zerg...
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.08.18 23:48:00 - [53] - Quote hmm.. PI products... Might not be a bad idea to make Planetary Interaction capable of making the required neccessities to repair a ship, even entirely. I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Mars Theran Caldari Provisions Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.08.18 23:50:00 - [54] - Quote Lavitakus Bromier wrote: Just make nanite reactive armor. Then you have a passive armor repair. Bio and crystal? I don't wanna shoot ships made of regeneration crystals. And if I wanted to shoot living armor ships I'd play star craft and kill zerg... ..as I mentioned, you already are. Not like that exactly, but the Gallente definitely have some kind of organic armor and structure on their ships according to EVE Lore, from what I've heard. I have deleted and cleared my signature 7 times and it still won't go away.
Kentren Blade of the Wolf Klaw 8	Posted - 2012.08.19 14:38:00 - [55] - Quote Lavitakus Bromier wrote: Just make nanite reactive armor. Then you have a passive armor repair. Bio and crystal? I don't wanna shoot ships made of regeneration crystals. And if I wanted to shoot living armor ships I'd play star craft and kill zerg... Then I suggest you take your troll self and go play that game. The eve universe will thank you for it.
Lavitakus Bromier The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2012.08.19 18:21:00 - [56] - Quote Kentren wrote: Lavitakus Bromier wrote: Just make nanite reactive armor. Then you have a passive armor repair. Bio and crystal? I don't wanna shoot ships made of regeneration crystals. And if I wanted to shoot living armor ships I'd play star craft and kill zerg... Then I suggest you take your troll self and go play that game. The eve universe will thank you for it. Hey nanite passive repair was a legit comment. Besides it's already semi in the.game with nanite paste. You can either a low slot item that passively repairs you ship with or without nanite paste. Or you have armor that is built with nanite paste and has it's own passive repair%.
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 1235	Posted - 2012.08.19 19:25:00 - [57] - Quote Lavitakus Bromier wrote: Kentren wrote: Lavitakus Bromier wrote: Just make nanite reactive armor. Then you have a passive armor repair. Bio and crystal? I don't wanna shoot ships made of regeneration crystals. And if I wanted to shoot living armor ships I'd play star craft and kill zerg... Then I suggest you take your troll self and go play that game. The eve universe will thank you for it. Hey nanite passive repair was a legit comment. Besides it's already semi in the.game with nanite paste. You can either a low slot item that passively repairs you ship with or without nanite paste. Or you have armor that is built with nanite paste and has it's own passive repair%. And post you source that states gallente have organic ships I can find any thing on this. I found it saying that "look" organic. So, similar to the ASB but uses nanite paste rather than cap charges? Sounds awesome... and expensive.
tankus2 The Peace Keepers 55	Posted - 2012.08.19 19:59:00 - [58] - Quote especially since paste needs a large amount of PI to pull off while cap charges need some mins Where the science gets done
Lavitakus Bromier The Scope Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2012.08.19 21:45:00 - [59] - Quote Nvr said it would be easy or cheap.
tankus2 The Peace Keepers 55	Posted - 2012.08.19 23:03:00 - [60] - Quote stuff in eve shouldn't be easy or cheap, unless there was no isk gained (for easy) or if you can't do much except spit at people (cheap) Where the science gets done

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.