EVE Search - Energized Armor Layering Membrane renewal

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Energized Armor Layering Membrane renewal

» 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)
Boris Amarr Viziam Amarr Empire 44	Posted - 2013.03.06 09:04:00 - [1] - Quote Now Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II has resits 20% to all damage kinds. With Armor Compensation skill it gives 25% resists and required 36 CPU. Energized Armor Layering Membrane II gives only 15% armor hits increasing, required 30 CPU and there is no skills for bonus improving. I think bonus of Energized Armor Layering Membrane II to armor should be increased up to 20% and added Armor Compensation skill for this module (requirements also should be increased up to 36 CPU). Also Layered Plating II also should be updated and bonus should be increased up to 15% like Adaptive Nano Plating II. This changes can give new live for this modules and allow to use Armor Layering Membranes instead of Armor Trimark rigs that have penalty on ship speed.
Katran Luftschreck Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps 1083	Posted - 2013.03.06 09:18:00 - [2] - Quote I like it, but I don't think they'll do it. CCP's usual solution to a broken module is to just add a new one and hope players forget the rest. Ergo, "Ancillary Armor Repairer - It's not your father's armor repair module, this one has built in ISK sink too!" airquotes Improvements airquotes EvE Forum Bingo
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 552	Posted - 2013.03.06 09:21:00 - [3] - Quote I didn't realise that supercaps needed more EHP.
Luc Chastot Gentleman's Corp 251	Posted - 2013.03.06 10:00:00 - [4] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: I didn't realise that supercaps needed more EHP. Because supers can't fit EANMs.... Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 168	Posted - 2013.03.06 10:27:00 - [5] - Quote Please, no more new armour skills needed. Especially no more armour skills tied to a single gimmick module which will see use on Caps for buffer due to EANM stacking. That said, these modules do need some work, as currently they really serve very little purpose.
TeeKay Latef BINFORD Cha Ching PLC 0	Posted - 2013.03.06 14:44:00 - [6] - Quote Armor Honeycombing could modified to also improve the Layering Membrane.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1856	Posted - 2013.03.06 16:04:00 - [7] - Quote Resists are always better than raw HP.... better for active repping, better for remote repping, and generally better for even buffer tanking. As such, I recommend simply improving the the Armor Layer Membrane from 15% to 20%.... 20% more resists is just better than 20% more armor under most ingame scenarios. Hell, look at an armor hurricane: 1x 1600 Steel Plate II 2x EANM's DCU, 3x Trimark... Putting on a 3rd EANM (even at my level 4 armor compensation skills) gives me more additional EHP than putting on an EALM. On the surface, you might think that's not indicative of a big deal... but that 3rd EANM is stacking penalized to be 57% effective, and its still more effective than the 100% Effective EALM!!!
Drake Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 56	Posted - 2013.03.06 16:19:00 - [8] - Quote Shouldn't it actually be more in the range of 30% or so since adding buffer isn't as good as adding more resists?
Goldensaver Marsuud And Sons Industries 155	Posted - 2013.03.06 16:27:00 - [9] - Quote Drake Doe wrote: Shouldn't it actually be more in the range of 30% or so since adding buffer isn't as good as adding more resists? No, it really shouldn't. Think of the supers.
Omnathious Deninard Extrinsic Operations 599	Posted - 2013.03.06 16:54:00 - [10] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Shouldn't it actually be more in the range of 30% or so since adding buffer isn't as good as adding more resists? No, it really shouldn't. Think of the supers. And yet it was just shown that resistance is better than buffer, so can supers not fit a ENAM? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting

Drake Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 56	Posted - 2013.03.06 17:26:00 - [11] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Shouldn't it actually be more in the range of 30% or so since adding buffer isn't as good as adding more resists? No, it really shouldn't. Think of the supers. 1x adaptive invul > 2x energized layering
Callic Veratar Power of the Phoenix 341	Posted - 2013.03.06 17:58:00 - [12] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Shouldn't it actually be more in the range of 30% or so since adding buffer isn't as good as adding more resists? No, it really shouldn't. Think of the supers. Balancing should take into account the most broken ships in the game, but not be ruled by them. DirectX 11, it's not rocket appliance!
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1856	Posted - 2013.03.06 18:25:00 - [13] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: Drake Doe wrote: Shouldn't it actually be more in the range of 30% or so since adding buffer isn't as good as adding more resists? No, it really shouldn't. Think of the supers. Your wrong... It doesn't matter the ship size.... Here's the math... For ANY Ship, regardless of the Armor HP it has.... EHP = HP / (1 - R), where R is your average resists. Add an EALM: EHP new = EHP old * ( 1 + X * S), where X is the HP boost percentage of the EALM, and S any the Stacking Penalty Reduction. This is because the resists stay the same, and only the HP increases. The increase in HP is a simple factor of (1 + XS). Add an EANM EHP new = EHP old / ( 1 - X * S), where X is the Resistance boost percentage of the EANM, and S is the Stacking Penalty Reduction. This is because the new resists R new = R old + ( 1 - R old) * X * S. If you plug it in, do some algebra, you end up with my expression above. Considering EANM's will stack with active hardeners, it's to-be-expected that comparing EANM's to EALM's should look at the "stacking penalized" EANM rather than a "singular" effect. Assuming we wanted the modules to be Equal, Xl = Xn S / ( 1 - Xn S), where Xl is the percentage boost of a single EALM, Xn is the percentage boost of an EANM, and S is the stacking penalty applied (because people generally use multiple modules that stack with EANMs) I made a nice graph of that function for you here. Realize, the above function is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the Ship size, meaning the raw HP it has doesn't matter!!! Looking at that graph, you will see, even with stacking penalties, the third 20% EANM provides equivalent EHP to a 15% EALM, once you have your armor comps at 3. Using the graph, I believe the optimal % for a t2 EALM is between 20 and 25%: At 20%, a T2 EALM is actually better than a Meta EANM, which it should be. However, T2 EANM's are better, until you put on the third EANM.... Here, the only time 3x EANM's are better than 2x EANMs and an EALM is when using nothing but deadspace and officer EANMS. At 25%, the first T2 EANM is better as soon as you train up an Armor Comp Skill, and the second T2 EANM is a better choice once you have Armor Comp skills to three or higher. (i.e. skills matter which is a very good thing). Unfortunately, at this level, 3x EANM's gives less EHP unless using A-Type EANMs or upper-end officer modules. We want to encourage people to fit bling for that "extra oomph", so this is value may seem too high. However, increasing raw HP does nothing to "boost" reps (local or remote). So, even if the the EANM provides less "EHP", it will boost RR and Local Reps enough to absolutely be worth it! In the end, boosting the raw HP of ships is not nearly as scary as boosting the resists of ships. A larger buffer with lower resists means your more resilient to alpha strikes, but the dps to kill you through reps is "lower".
Goldensaver Marsuud And Sons Industries 155	Posted - 2013.03.06 19:58:00 - [14] - Quote Yeah, my response was really meant to specifically a 30% value. Not so much against a general buff of the module. I see the post above and could agree with something between 20-25%. That's fair, and the graph made by Gizznit makes that quite obvious. I just specifically said Supers because they already have extraordinary amounts of hitpoints and they don't need more. But if all of you think it's fine for a single EALM to be better than a non-stacking penalized EANM (comparison between buffer and resists aside), and that they do NOT suffer stacking penalties, then sure. I'm sure that sounds like a just great idea.
Boris Amarr Viziam Amarr Empire 45	Posted - 2013.03.07 18:16:00 - [15] - Quote Also it will be very special module. Because without stack penalty with Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II it will be very useful for solo pvp or small gangs, but absolutely useless for big gangs, because with logistic ships high resists are mush required.
Omnathious Deninard Extrinsic Operations 608	Posted - 2013.03.07 20:32:00 - [16] - Quote I would personally like to see: Layered Plating II 15% to Armor HP Energized Armor Layering Membrane II 25% to Armor HP Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting
Akara Ito Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 65	Posted - 2013.03.07 20:44:00 - [17] - Quote Even 20% wouldnt be enough. EALM need to give more ehp than EANM with level 4/5 skills, or at least more than the second EANM with these skills. Oh and they should obviously stack with trimarks.
Drake Doe SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 64	Posted - 2013.03.07 22:21:00 - [18] - Quote The layered plate is a joke also, only adding a tiny amount of eho compared to the non energized adaptive
Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 28	Posted - 2013.03.07 23:11:00 - [19] - Quote perhaps if they made the EANM an active module like the invul mod aswell as improving the HP amount there might be a good enough reason to use them maybe change the fitting requirement so it uses less cpu but more pg instead.
Sigras Conglomo IMPERIAL LEGI0N 384	Posted - 2013.03.07 23:12:00 - [20] - Quote come to think of it; ive never actually seen these fit on any ship . . . now i know why . . . with the RAH not stacking against the EANM there is really no reason to use one especially with low slots more valuable than mids

Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1877	Posted - 2013.03.07 23:25:00 - [21] - Quote Sigras wrote: come to think of it; ive never actually seen these fit on any ship . . . now i know why . . . with the RAH not stacking against the EANM there is really no reason to use one especially with low slots more valuable than mids It is my understanding that the RAH stacks with the DCU....
Verity Sovereign Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 401	Posted - 2013.03.08 15:38:00 - [22] - Quote 25% resist = 75% damage taken. 1/.75 = 33.3333% more EHP if you fit just 1 EANM and no other resist mod/rig. A 2nd one increases EHP by 28% At the moment, % increases to EHP have no stacking penalties - this is minor for PDUs, significant for trimarks and CDFs, and could be significant if one took an 8 low ship, and just fitted layering membranes. There reaches a certain point where a layering membrane increases EHP more than a 1600mm plate - this is reached faster the higher your base EHP, thus it will happen on capitals first. However, at the moment, the EANMs are just much more attractive, the third one still gives more EHP, and then on top of that, you can fit a DCII for a 17% increase to EHP of armor (and then a RAH with minimal stacking penalties, which would still result in the DCII doing a 15% EHP increase before the RAH has shifted any resists) Thats 5 lows to fit before you can even think about the laying membrane being a better choice than some other low. Keep in mind, those other mods also increase your effective repping power. It seems completely fair that one should be able to get more EHP at the expense of decreased repping power. buff this module
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 556	Posted - 2013.03.08 16:00:00 - [23] - Quote Verity Sovereign wrote: Thats 5 lows to fit before you can even think about the laying membrane being a better choice than some other low. Supercapitals, which are the only ships to use layering membranes, have more than five lows. BTW, you neglected to account for the armour resist gang link, which also stacks with EANMs. Unless you boost the layering membranes absurdly, they will continue to be only used on supercapitals, because they are the only ships with sufficient lowslots and a lack of need to fit other mods. So, why do supercaps need more EHP?
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1878	Posted - 2013.03.08 17:52:00 - [24] - Quote Verity Sovereign wrote: At the moment, % increases to EHP have no stacking penalties - this is minor for PDUs, significant for trimarks and CDFs, and could be significant if one took an 8 low ship, and just fitted layering membranes. There reaches a certain point where a layering membrane increases EHP more than a 1600mm plate - this is reached faster the higher your base EHP, thus it will happen on capitals first. As you precluded to, increasing resists is better than increasing raw HP almost ALWAYS.... as damage reduction is far more potent than just increasing your hitpoints. You did bring up a point I neglected in my analysis earlier... The EALM competes with armor plates... Armor plates not only require a significant amount of PG, but add mass, which results in lower prop-mod speeds and poorer agility. The EALM has no drawbacks. Look at the raw HP provided by a RT Plate. At 15%, the base HP needed on the ship is then: 200 RT Plate = adds 525 HP, Equals EALM if BASE HP is 3500 (Between Cruiser and BC) 400 RT Plate = adds 1050 HP, Equals EALM if BASE HP is 7000 (Armor BS) 800 RT Plate = adds 2100 HP, Equals EALM if BASE HP is 14000 (Dual Plated Armor BS) 1600 RT Plate = adds 4200 HP, Equals EALM if BAS HP is 28000 (5x Plated Armegeddon) Note, I said BASE HP.... capitalizing BASE on purpose... The Plates receive bonuses from your Hull Upgrades skill (25%), and from other modules like Trimarks... A triple Trimarked, HU V character gets a 90% boost to the armor added by a Plate... As such, the appropriate way to compare the EALM to plates is to take trimarks and skills out of the equation, and just compare base HP... In short though, the "armor" boosting effect of the EALM just doesn't compete with plates, unless we are talking about capital ships. Even at 25%, if I reposted all the numbers (which would be factors of 2100 instead of 3500), the plates add a superior buffer (assuming you can fit them), unless we are talking triple plated BS's... Frankly, that's acceptable.. Boost the EALM!!!!!!
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 1878	Posted - 2013.03.08 18:02:00 - [25] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Verity Sovereign wrote: Thats 5 lows to fit before you can even think about the laying membrane being a better choice than some other low. Supercapitals, which are the only ships to use layering membranes, have more than five lows. BTW, you neglected to account for the armour resist gang link, which also stacks with EANMs. Unless you boost the layering membranes absurdly, they will continue to be only used on supercapitals, because they are the only ships with sufficient lowslots and a lack of need to fit other mods. So, why do supercaps need more EHP? Meh.... Supercaps don't need more EHP... They seem to be pretty popular on Aeons and Avatars, with the extra lowslot to utilize them... but they are very rarely used on other ships. Also, there are no "faction/officer/deadspace" versions of the EALM, and so you end up with t2 versions competing with Officer/Deadspace EANM's, which ups the performance of the EANM quite a bit..
Gypsio III Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 556	Posted - 2013.03.08 19:22:00 - [26] - Quote Don't get me wrong here, the EALM is fairly rubbish and does deserve to be more useful. But simply upping the % HP won't work very well. For a small boost, then subcaps still won't fit it because EANMs etc are still better, while a boost large enough to be useful for subcaps will do "entertaining" things to supercap EHP. I'm trying to think of a change to it that makes it more useful for subcaps, but I'm not getting very far... Maybe make small, med and large versions that give less armour HP than a plate or (typical) trimark, but don't have those modules' mobility penalties? Without a XL version or a % modifier, then supercaps gain no benefit.
Jonas Sukarala Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 28	Posted - 2013.03.08 23:23:00 - [27] - Quote maybe the only way of making them worth using over the EANM is to give them a big enough drawback so as to make them only better in certain situations/setups. Then a large enough increase to HP % as to give them a better EHP increase than EANM.... like mini plates Drawbacks being : mass increase pg increase
Verity Sovereign Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 401	Posted - 2013.03.09 00:08:00 - [28] - Quote How about -75% to capital armor repair amount? A penalty to incoming repair amount too, if that is feasible with the current code (even more preferable, would just be a penalty to incoming capital sized repairs) Your armor lasts longer, but is harder to repair. For sub caps, you're already sacrificing resists which increase effective rep amount... for capitals that may fit these rather than plates like on sub caps, in addition to still having the mods needed for good resists, then it seems the appropriate thing is to bring in a similar penalty as seen with sub caps - your reps are less effective for the benefit of more EHP (and no agility penalty)


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.