EVE Search - Make the stealth module hi-slot mounted

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Make the stealth module hi-slot mounted

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Seraph Demon	Posted - 2005.03.24 05:21:00 - [1] The stealth module (reduces signature radius) plays on the main advantage of minmatar ships, and as a result appeals best to us for usage. We have a hard enough time tanking as it is without needing to loose a mid-slot to this module and we have an excess of high-slots. Please make the stealth module a high-slot module. [:Bambi-Eyes:]
Drunvalo	Posted - 2005.03.24 05:32:00 - [2] request denied. yarr.
Pointless Vengence	Posted - 2005.03.24 05:35:00 - [3] Got a info on or a link to this mod? I've heard of it but have never seen info on it . .. Thanks, pointless
Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.03.24 06:24:00 - [4] Originally by: Seraph Demon The stealth module (reduces signature radius) plays on the main advantage of minmatar ships, and as a result appeals best to us for usage. We have a hard enough time tanking as it is without needing to loose a mid-slot to this module and we have an excess of high-slots. Please make the stealth module a high-slot module. [:Bambi-Eyes:] What the heck? You're saying that a module appeals most to your chosen race, and thus you want its module position changed to suit you even further? Tissue?
Synthemesc	Posted - 2005.03.24 06:45:00 - [5] Give it up. Train Amarr/Caldari like CCP wants you to.
0seeker0	Posted - 2005.03.24 08:44:00 - [6] Stealth module? San. Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware. Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
Noriath	Posted - 2005.03.24 09:06:00 - [7] Edited by: Noriath on 24/03/2005 09:07:29 There are not enough defensive highslot modules. Right now there is basicly no point in not loading the best guns you can possibly cram into your ships highslots after fitting everything else because there just is no sound alternative for highslots...
0seeker0	Posted - 2005.03.24 09:26:00 - [8] i repeat,after looking at the item database... Stealth module? Pls post a link to the page on the item database where this is, i think someone is fibbing. San. Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware. Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
Damocles Ician	Posted - 2005.03.24 09:28:00 - [9] Here you go stealth systems at eve-i in summary, they use cap to reduce your sig radius -------------
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.24 09:30:00 - [10] Edited by: Face Lifter on 24/03/2005 09:39:27 I wouldn't mind something like that, as long as it wasn't too overpowered. It could be a frigate size module that eats some come and reduces your total sig by 15% or so. And I agree there aren't enough interesting high slot modules. It's not something important tho EDIT: I didn't know there were Stealth System modules in the database. I checked their stats.. I'm disappointed. Why can't devs ever get things right.. jeez. Only the battleship sized ones are useful. And here I thought this would mostly be for frigates and cruisers, while giving little advantages to battleships. The "small" and "micro" ones are completely worthless due to bad energy use and insignificant bonus. While "medium" and "large" could only be run by battleships, giving them a considerable advantage against other battleships at close range. They'd only serve well on close range bs setups. Bah Kill medium and large ones, make micro one do 10% and small do 20%
Judge Fodder	Posted - 2005.03.24 09:48:00 - [11] The sig bonuses are absolute, not percentages. Micro one does -5 sig radius, not -5% sig radius. So a micro one on a frigate would do roughly the same as a large one on a BS.
0seeker0	Posted - 2005.03.24 12:25:00 - [12] Thanks for the link. But how come they arnt in game? why are there so many interesting stuff that people dredge up from eve-i, that arnt in game? bah. San. Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware. Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.24 12:42:00 - [13] If anything stealth moduleÆs are primarily made for stealth bombers and Covert op ships. As they already have the high slots taken up with a cloaking module and there weapons it makes sense that mid slots are used. Most Covert op ships have extra mid slots. If this module was a high slot the Helios with a stealth module and a cloak module would have 0 weapon slots. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
0seeker0	Posted - 2005.03.24 13:09:00 - [14] Is it in the game yet? i havnt seen it.... San. Character "Widescreen" is a scammer; beware. Check my bio for a list of known scammers.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.24 13:21:00 - [15] I hope they appear at the same time as the Stealth bomber. But only time will tell. Cannot wait for that ship, already planning my ship layout and collecting modules I need. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Seraph Demon	Posted - 2005.03.24 15:15:00 - [16] Originally by: Darkwolf What the heck? You're saying that a module appeals most to your chosen race, and thus you want its module position changed to suit you even further? Yeah. Shameless aren't I? but seriously, I can't think of any loadout on my wonderful minmatar ships that can spare a mid-slot, but I can think of many that can spare a high-slot. So I want CCP to make this a high-slot module. Look. They don't have to do it, I'm just saying I want them to. Oh, and w.r.t. the numbers on EVE-i: the medium would be fine on a cruiser if it didn't take 250 PG (125-150 is more reasonable), similarly, the small (which is clearly meant for frigates) takes 25pg! that's like a big sign saying: assault frigates only please! The micro one clearly isn't worth it, and the small is too pg heavy, dunno really, like whoever said, only the large one is really really worth it. maybe they should make an XLarge one: 4500 pg for -200 sig-rad kinda irritating But besides their steep powergrid requirements, 40 sig radius is a very good reduction for a cruiser, I guess I'd say I think the numbers are fair.
Odin Tahmorrex	Posted - 2005.03.24 16:28:00 - [17] Edited by: Odin Tahmorrex on 24/03/2005 16:29:09 Originally by: Seraph Demon Oh, and w.r.t. the numbers on EVE-i: the medium would be fine on a cruiser if it didn't take 250 PG (125-150 is more reasonable), similarly, the small (which is clearly meant for frigates) takes 25pg! that's like a big sign saying: assault frigates only please! Problem being? Modules like this aren't made so that the noobie ships can fit them. Why would a vigil, rifter or executioner need one of these? They're comet-speeded specks on the screen as is. The assault ships on the other hand are a bit heavier, and thus slower, w/ a slightly larger sig radius if I'm not mistaken, and I may be. They could use a little module to help that out, though it would be at the cost of that beloved midslot and a chunk of power.
Missa	Posted - 2005.03.24 16:49:00 - [18] Making a stealth mod high slotted actually makes a world of sense to me, mainly because it will prevent *****-cheese ships with insanely low sig. rads and with high speed from also doing much damage. It has nothing to do with minmatar and shield tanking, it is about a mod which makes guns miss you more nerfing your offence as a penalty. The other place I can see this mod is in a low slot. In fact if I was not concerned with game balance at all, but logical sense I would make it a low slot mod as I view it as a hull mod to make your ship more stealthy. Not as a internal computery type mod which somehow by _outputting_ energy it makes your ship ummm output less when read by another ships sensors. The mid slot simply makes no sense as a choice to place this type of mod. --Missa New Siggy to Come Soon(tm)
Selim	Posted - 2005.03.24 17:13:00 - [19] Indeed, highslot makes more sense from a balance point of view.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.24 17:36:00 - [20] Edited by: Pottsey on 24/03/2005 17:39:16 Edited by: Pottsey on 24/03/2005 17:36:41 ôIndeed, highslot makes more sense from a balance point of view.ô I donÆt understand that. How is making a stealth module impractical for use on a Covert op/stealth ship balanced? I donÆt see any good reason to make it a high slot but I have already listed good reasons to keep it a mid slot. If they do make it a high slot they better also add extra high slots to all the covert op ships. But thatÆs not a good idea as the ships already have lots of slots and a lot of free mid slots. We need something usefull to put in the mid slots for a Covert op ship and this is the perfact module. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
H0ot	Posted - 2005.03.24 17:50:00 - [21] Isn't the whole point of a covert ops ship that you are cloaked, and thus, you shouldn't give a shít about your signature radius? That which cannot be targeted (or seen) doesn't need a low signature radius in the first place. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.24 18:03:00 - [22] ohh.. if the sign reduction is absolute and not a percentage. That changes things. Now, according to current stats, only the micro Stealth System is worth using, and only on the frigate. The small one may see some use on frigates too, but it takes too much cap to start with. All others are totally useless, and their sig reductions mean too little for cruisers and battleships, especially considering the fitting and cap use. A percent reduction would be much better, as then it would see some use on other ship classes and the advantages of using those wouldn't be slanted so heavily towards ships with naturally small sig radius.
Salek	Posted - 2005.03.24 18:41:00 - [23] Calm down guys. If you read the news item on eve-i about these, it says the stats are placeholders, and probably bear no resemblance to what will eventually be released
Seraph Demon	Posted - 2005.03.24 20:23:00 - [24] Originally by: Pottsey If they do make it a high slot they better also add extra high slots to all the covert op ships. But thatÆs not a good idea as the ships already have lots of slots and a lot of free mid slots. We need something usefull to put in the mid slots for a Covert op ship and this is the perfact module. The covert ops ships don't even need this module, they're cloaked. You can't target it - let alone shoot at it - if you don't know it's there. Plus, if these 'placeholder' values are anything to go by (I admit that's a big if), those covert ops ships certainly haven't got 25 pg to spare - they barely have that much to begin with . Just make them high-slot modules so I can have my way and you can all whine at me. Actually, joking aside, I would like it if there were both passive and active modules that fit in low/high slots respectively, something like this: Medium Stealth Plating Fittings: Low-Slot, 200 pg, 100 CPU Signature radius bonus: -40 Armor resistances penalty: 5% Medium Obscurity Field Fittings: High-Slot, 150 pg, 150 CPU Signature radius bonus: -60 Cycle Length: 10 seconds Cap per cycle: 80 Shield resistances penalty (permanent): 5% c'mon CCP, you know you like those resistances penalties Then add some new skillz: Stealth systems operation - Engineering rank 3 - 5% reduction in CPU needs of stealth systems per level Sly Moves - Navigation Rank 5 - 3% reduction in sig-radius for all ships per level
Wired	Posted - 2005.03.24 21:17:00 - [25] They may need a bit of work, coz in theory you could fit 6 of those to a scorp and it'd ahve a sig radius of 0, therefore impossible to lock, it would slightly ruin the scorps dmg output but as it doesn't have one it would be worth a look. ============================================= If you cant have sex with the monkey Make friends with the organ grinder....
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.03.24 21:32:00 - [26] that's why I want sig radius reduction modules to be percentage based, with stacking penalty, and no more than 20% reduction per module.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.03.24 21:35:00 - [27] Edited by: Pottsey on 24/03/2005 21:37:09 ôThe covert ops ships don't even need this module, they're cloaked.ö But Covert Ops dont live cloaked and when you decloak for combat in that stealth bomber or other covert ships, your going to need that stealth module. If any ship should be stealthy and hard to lock itÆs the covert ops ships that are built around stealth. Covert op donÆt have any defence what so ever, low shields, low hull and low resistances. Cloaking and being hard to lock is the only defence they have. Making stealth modules high slots would be unfair to covert op ships because the stealth ships end up less stealth then every other ship unless you want to go around with 0 weapons. Perhaps they could make these modules high slots then make some better ones that only fit in the mid slots of covert op ships. EDIT: Making them high slots might solve the scorps using 6 of them but that just means now you have a problem with drone based Domi pilots using 6. _________________________________________________ Gallente defensive innovation comes from unexpected source.
Darkwolf	Posted - 2005.03.24 23:19:00 - [28] Wait a minute, so the sig penalty is an absolute number, not a percentage? What's CCP smoking? Absolute penalties are a BAAADDDD idea, since it lets metrics get to zero! Make it a percentage! Oh, and has anyone else noticed that the swear filter seems to be off?
Kindra	Posted - 2005.03.25 02:09:00 - [29] Originally by: Darkwolf ... Oh, and has anyone else noticed that the swear filter seems to be off? Actually as I was making some posts last night it was filtering common words and _not_ curse words (well getting those too at the expense of common words). But screeching back onto topic I would like to pose this: why are people concerned about these stealth mods and covert ops ships at all? I am concerned about these mods + interceptors or heavy assault crusiers as it seems right now these 2 ship classes are just a bit too hard to hit anyways in most cases. I really don't think that the covert ships even need a mod like this though due to the fact that you are either cloaked and safe or you get decloaked due to bugs usually. Like decloaking because someone sent you a chat or gang invite and then you die quickly once decloaked as nothing was within 2km, let alone 20km of you but EVE has decided your time to cloak is up. The solution to cloaking bugs like this used to be to put on a 2nd cloak to back up your primary one but CCP removed this option sometime around or before the 1 mwd "nerf". Then when the first cloak failed due to a bug, you could quickly turn on the 2nd and move to a different spot. Please, please, please bring back multiple cloaks on 1 ship.
Seraph Demon	Posted - 2005.03.25 05:22:00 - [30] Edited by: Seraph Demon on 25/03/2005 05:22:21 I agree that a multiplicative approach would be favorable, but I can see that these stealth modules need to be sized, and that's hard to do with multiplicative bonuses. on the other hand, with additive bonuses, sized modules are easy to make, but stacking is very pronounced even in the low numbers of modules: 'additive' sig radius bonus: -80 per module on a battleship (base sig rad: 400): 1 module: 320 -> 20% effective bonus 2 modules: 240 -> 25% effective bonus 3 modules: 160 -> 33% effective bonus 'multiplicative sig radius bonus: 20% per module on a battleship: 1 module: 320 2 modules: 256 3 modules: 204.8 The only other modules in-game which are both multiplicative and sized are ABs/MWDs, and they get away with it because either they are ineffective for larger ships than they were designed for, or their penalties are too grave for smaller ships than they were designed for. So, I think something like this might work: Stealth System: Uses minor skein perturbations to reduce the sensor signature of a ship. These devices need to be powerful enough to compete with the mass of the ship for skein dilation, so heavier ships will notice a reduced effect. The math: There are six sets of stealth modules, for each ship class, there is a passive stealth that gives a 15% bonus, and an active stealth that gives a 30% bonus (40/125 = 32%, so this is about equivalent to the medium for a cruiser on EVE-i). So, take an active stealth on our generic cruiser (mass 10, sig-rad 125). The effect of using an active stealth is 0.7x125 = 87.5 (which is about what a destroyer's sig-rad is). The powergrid requirements are around 200 which prevents a frigate from fitting the module, and the module's mass index is 10 kiltons which means it will be ineffective on a battleship. To accomplish this we use this formula: actual sig radius multiplier = base multiplier^(module mass index / ship mass) The modules: Small Active Stealth: PG: 20, CPU: 50 cap/time: 2 sig-radius multiplier: 0.7 effective on ships of mass: 1 kiloton Medium Active Stealth: PG: 200, CPU: 100 cap/time: 6 sig-radius multiplier: 0.7 effective on ships of mass: 10 kilotons Large Active Stealth: PG: 2000, CPU 150 cap/time: 14 sig-radius multiplier: 0.7 effective on ships of mass: 100 kilotons The Passive stealths are analogous, but use no cap and their sig-radius multiplier is 0.85 Quick numbers: Any active stealth on same size ship: 0.7 Active Stealth on one ship class larger: 0.964 (battleship using medium stealth: 385 sig radius) Active Stealth on two ship classes larger: 0.996 (battleship using small stealth: 398 sig radius) Active Stealth on one ship class smaller: 0.028 (cruiser using battleship stealth: 3.53 sig radius) lol, that last one's a little ridiculous, oh well, back to the drawing board :)

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.