EVE Search - what if.. Remote Resistance Modifer modules

All Channels

Ships and Modules

what if.. Remote Resistance Modifer modules

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.04.26 21:27:00 - [1] What if we had remote resistance modifier modules Defensive example: med slot, +25% shield thermal resistance to a target up to 20km away Offensive example: med slot, -15% shield kinetic resistance to a target up to 20km away. The resistance reducing module should offer less % than resistance increasing one, since reduction is way more effective than boosting. Think sensor booster vs sensor damp If such modules existed, how would they effect ship combat? would it be better or worse? I think that such modules could be pretty good. They won't be overpowered if they don't add or remove too much resistance and if stacking penalty applies. They could effect fleet battle dynamics. Right now, fleets call primary target and focus fire on it, killing it almost instantly. This kinda sucks, as this strategy leaves little to player skill and team work. Now, what if someone called a target, and the opposing fleet directed all its resistance boosting modules to defend the target? then it would last longer. Maybe it could even break the pattern of single target ganking. Maybe not, but it would make for some interesting possibilities. Before anyone says "remote resistance module would be overpowered if many support ships focus it on 1 target", keep in mind that stacking penalty for resistances is pretty bad. Also, there would be a counter measure module.
Hast	Posted - 2005.04.26 21:51:00 - [2] everyone would fly stabbed up ravens with ****loads of -exp res for instance and bane torps
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.04.26 22:00:00 - [3] Using lots of those modules may gimp your setup tho And you need separate module for shield and armor resistances. So it's a bit of a gamble on what your enemy will be tanking. I imagine these things to be useful in fleet combat. In small engagements they would have rather limited use, since tanking, scrambling, and cap stuff is pretty important.
Noriath	Posted - 2005.04.26 22:22:00 - [4] How would the module work when the resistance is already 0? also that would kind of take the bite out of tech 2 ships...
Sadist	Posted - 2005.04.27 05:35:00 - [5] Edited by: Sadist on 27/04/2005 05:35:39 Originally by: Noriath How would the module work when the resistance is already 0? also that would kind of take the bite out of tech 2 ships... 1. Use the same stacking technique as for the armor/shield hardeners, so it will never reach zero. 2. No, it wont take the bite out, because 'see #1' and #3 3. The NPC's wont use them, and player battleships still kill tech 2 cruisers/AF with a web/nos/torp setup. This wont gimp them any more than target painters already did. To the original poster - nice idea man, many other RPG's have it, why the hell not EVE? _______________________________________________
Zyrla Bladestorm	Posted - 2005.04.27 05:52:00 - [6] Originally by: Sadist Edited by: Sadist on 27/04/2005 05:35:39 Originally by: Noriath How would the module work when the resistance is already 0? also that would kind of take the bite out of tech 2 ships... 1. Use the same stacking technique as for the armor/shield hardeners, so it will never reach zero. 2. No, it wont take the bite out, because 'see #1' and #3 3. The NPC's wont use them, and player battleships still kill tech 2 cruisers/AF with a web/nos/torp setup. This wont gimp them any more than target painters already did. To the original poster - nice idea man, many other RPG's have it, why the hell not EVE? I think he meant, what if the target has 0 resistance and you apply a -15 resistance module to it (ie negative resistance = extra damage ?) . ----- Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
Face Lifter	Posted - 2005.04.27 06:03:00 - [7] the + and - percentages would only apply to current resistance value. So if you reduce 0% resistance by 15%, it's still 0% The less resistance you have, the less effective that module becomes. Conversely, remote resistance boosters would have much better effect on low resistances than on high ones
Cracken	Posted - 2005.04.27 08:13:00 - [8] Edited by: ***en on 27/04/2005 08:13:51 yep 0 is an absolute number for the purposes of resist calcs. You can increase it a higher than 0 number but never below.
Sadist	Posted - 2005.04.27 08:14:00 - [9] Originally by: Face Lifter the + and - percentages would only apply to current resistance value. So if you reduce 0% resistance by 15%, it's still 0% The less resistance you have, the less effective that module becomes. Conversely, remote resistance boosters would have much better effect on low resistances than on high ones Face lifter has, pretty much, nailed it. This idea has no drawbacks and is pretty balanced (only need to balance out the cap needs and teh fitting requirements). I really hope this will get done some time in the future, because if tech 3 ships ever come out, they will be so uber, no matter what everyone says, that there will be need for modules to reduce the uberness. [/babbling over] _______________________________________________
MrRookie	Posted - 2005.04.27 08:23:00 - [10] Originally by: Face Lifter the + and - percentages would only apply to current resistance value. So if you reduce 0% resistance by 15%, it's still 0% The less resistance you have, the less effective that module becomes. Conversely, remote resistance boosters would have much better effect on low resistances than on high ones Erm you reduce the damage taken by x% you dont add x% to the resistance. Thats why you get 50% resistance instead of 0% when you add an em hardner on the Raven. And btw this is a realy good idea. Cant see any reasons for any modules like this to bring any imbalance _____________________________________________ \o/ I got a siggy... WTB 3x Medium Modulated Pulse Energy Beams http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=139877
babylonstew	Posted - 2005.04.27 14:52:00 - [11] Logistics cruisers for the win actually, i think this is a sterling idea if the numbers are balanced correctly, and maybe the support cruisers get a simliar bonus to use them, it would give them a much needed boost for both helping with defense and an actual semi offensive role N ice idea man (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa	Posted - 2005.04.27 14:55:00 - [12] Edited by: Shan''Talasha Mea''Questa on 27/04/2005 14:56:34 Besides what would happen if a resist dropped below 0 ? Increased damage ? Sounds a bit too much like Diablo II to me then... [Edit] .....never mind....
babylonstew	Posted - 2005.04.27 14:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Shan'Talasha Mea'Questa Besides what would happen if a resist dropped below 0 ? Increased damage ? Sounds a bit too much like Diablo II to me then... 0 is 0, cant have negative numbers, which i think was mentioned above (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination.
Droido	Posted - 2005.04.27 16:55:00 - [14] I think the "Offensive version" could quickly become the next uber ganking module, so careful balancing is required. On the other hand, making such a module fairly low range could result in fleet battles that require more close range/small ships. The role of the heavy hitters (BS) whould still be long range, mainly to take out the enemy BS. The high base resistances on tech 2 ships would however make coordinated resistance lowering against a BS worthwhile. This task would be best achieved with the smallest and fastest ship that could fit the resistance lowering module. So this kind of module could be cruiser sized, maybe even a 'support cruiser only' module? Restrictions like that would at least reduce the gank factor.
Malena	Posted - 2005.04.27 17:16:00 - [15] an excellent idea. I like the arguement and the stacking nerf idea. please look at post number 68 of this link: Linkage The whole discussion is relevant to this one as well, but the one I speak of is specific.

Pages: [1] :: 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.