EVE Search - Oversized Plates Solution

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Oversized Plates Solution

» 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)
Har Ganeth	Posted - 2005.09.11 11:46:00 - [1] Make plates affect the agility of a ship aswell as the max velocity...
Fredbob	Posted - 2005.09.11 12:45:00 - [2] You'd think they would wouldn't you? Fitting massive slabs on metal on the side of a smallish ship is surely going to mess with the power steering? ___________ ~Fredbob~
Hephaesteus	Posted - 2005.09.11 14:13:00 - [3] OMG not another nerf the Rax thread.
Hephaesteus	Posted - 2005.09.11 14:15:00 - [4] Sorry too much whine with me dinner, you're right tho
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.09.11 14:55:00 - [5] Edited by: Nyxus on 11/09/2005 14:57:39 Agility...yes........ .......AND sig radius. A hefty boost here. I am tired of 400mm plated ceptors. It's silly. 1600mm plated cruiser with small guns is just as bad. If they need more armor then just give them more base armor and let them fit medium guns for crying out loud. Nyxus
Sentani	Posted - 2005.09.11 15:04:00 - [6] how about re-making them into buffers and un-repairable for armor reps... need a station to repair them... /Sent
Har Ganeth	Posted - 2005.09.11 16:20:00 - [7] It's not a "nerf rax" thread - I fly a t-rax! I just find it unrealistic that I can fit a BS sized plate to my cruiser, and only experience a -10% modifier to my max velocity. I'm just trying to come up with realistic balancing solutions, for what most consider to be an overpowerful item (oversized plates on smaller ships). It wouldn't have to be a massive change, just a change so that you might consider going for agility over staying power - Rather than at the moment, plates are the automatic choice with no thinking needed.
Joshua Keeling	Posted - 2005.09.11 16:38:00 - [8] Sure if you do the same to shield extenders.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.09.11 17:08:00 - [9] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 11/09/2005 17:10:28 Originally by: Har Ganeth Make plates affect the agility of a ship aswell as the max velocity... There is no "problem", except PERHAPS with the Thorax. And THAT should be solved by fixing the Thorax, NOT by a change which will affect a LOT of ship setups outside the thorax. Plus, a smaller plate would have the same effect on agility as a larger one, hence TOTALLY screwing ANY plated setup. And given CCP's boost to plates recently, I don't think they're gonna do that. PS, plated cruisers are more survivable against BS sure. But against inties, they suck resources you could have used for other, more effective means of defence (launchers, nos, etc). An ares and a claw killed 2 plated rax's on one occasions and a plated bc on another recently, for example. And 800 or 1600 IS a genuine choice... "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Sorja	Posted - 2005.09.11 17:30:00 - [10] Originally by: Joshua Keeling Sure if you do the same to shield extenders. Which is something we 'eligible' shield extender users don't care about because they are simply not worth using excepted on very few ships (Ferox and assault launcher Cerberus come to mind). In fact, plates are the way to go on many Caldari ships, even on some ships with shield boost bonus like the Moa. Now, if shield extenders are brought on line HP wise with plates and their fitting requirements lowered (brought in line too, mind you), we can talk about it. And I see no reason to nerf plates in the first place. Nerfs are bad, k? Kill mails
Ithaca	Posted - 2005.09.11 17:39:00 - [11] silly idea imo, if anything do something like the mwd and ab's set it so they have a -15000mn or something similar that way the inetia of the plate is used
Spy4Hire	Posted - 2005.09.11 18:08:00 - [12] Simple fix: Adjust the fitting reqs so that 50 (useless) 100 and 200mm fit frigs. 400 & 800 cruisers (and introduce the various 800mm types!!!) 1600 for BS only. Simple enough. It's the missing 800mm and low fitting of the 400 & 1600 that are causing the huge problems... not that I see them as problems, IMO. I run with 'em, just like every other tanker out there.
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.09.12 11:25:00 - [13] Remove them from the game. Problem solved :) Seriously, agility decrease and an increasing speed penalty would work.
Lilan Kahn	Posted - 2005.09.12 11:36:00 - [14] plates got mass add plates mass to the ships mass same way as a mwd and ditch the speed reduktion problem solved Originally by: Eris Discordia We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.
MrCjEvans	Posted - 2005.09.12 11:46:00 - [15] plates do not need a nerf, but maybe the agility think might work, not too much though, but at the end of the day if you fit an oversized playe, you nerf your damage output, just depens on style
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.09.12 12:04:00 - [16] I agree that plates adding to mass is a good idea. It would reduce the effectiveness of ABs and MWDs. A small but easy and interesting change. -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Justice Bringer	Posted - 2005.09.12 12:39:00 - [17] Originally by: Joshua Keeling Sure if you do the same to shield extenders. Agreed
Moominer	Posted - 2005.09.12 12:47:00 - [18] This is just more short-sighted requests for nerfs, that will most likely (unfortunatly) get taken on board. Oversized ABs were dealt with like this, and they were nerfed out of existance. Adding battleship mass to battleship plates will mean they cannot be used on cruiser period, if this is to be taken on board then the mass needs to make oversizeds plating a disadvantage, but still effective enough to be an option. Many ships (especially cruisers) currently need them to be a viable choice in PvP. In some instances, but by no means all, oversized plates are making ships overpowered against their non-plate counterparts. A sweeping nerf of all oversized plating will put some ships that have just come out of their box firmly back into their boxes, especially in the cruiser class - and that's not going to be beneficial.
Lilan Kahn	Posted - 2005.09.12 14:21:00 - [19] Originally by: Moominer This is just more short-sighted requests for nerfs, that will most likely (unfortunatly) get taken on board. Oversized ABs were dealt with like this, and they were nerfed out of existance. Adding battleship mass to battleship plates will mean they cannot be used on cruiser period, if this is to be taken on board then the mass needs to make oversizeds plating a disadvantage, but still effective enough to be an option. Many ships (especially cruisers) currently need them to be a viable choice in PvP. In some instances, but by no means all, oversized plates are making ships overpowered against their non-plate counterparts. A sweeping nerf of all oversized plating will put some ships that have just come out of their box firmly back into their boxes, especially in the cruiser class - and that's not going to be beneficial. over sized abs needet nerfing tbh even i agreed with it as a inty pilot Originally by: Eris Discordia We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.
Proj3ctX	Posted - 2005.09.12 14:48:00 - [20] why not just make plates a percentage thing rather than a fixed +<insert armour amount here>, have a +<insert percentage value here> instead obviously, make the percentages reflect stats as they shud be, relative to ship class at the mo (eg. for 1600mm nanofiber make the percentage give as close a bonus to +2640 armour on as many BS as you can) it is the thickness that is measured neways, not the whole set of armour, putting a 1600 plate on a rax or something at the mo is like putting a kid in an adult sized suit of armour, it wouldnt work, however u cud make the kid a suit of similarly thick armour. Going back to an eve perspective, the same set of plates you put on a battleship, wud not be any where near the same size if u fitted them to a cruiser class vessel (wud be kinda wierd if u saw a thorax wandering round with a shell of 1600mm plate that looked like a mega or domi :P). A percentage armour value increase would reflect the surface area lost in trying to put super thick armour on a cruiser as opposed to a battleship (or indeed frigates, lets not forget about 400mm plate) you wud still get ur hefty armour bonus from making the effort to fit dubbed "oversized" plates, except they wouldnt really be oversized anymore, just damn thick and heavy, and the armour bonus would be a tad more realistic just an idea neways :)
Ice Foxy	Posted - 2005.09.12 14:51:00 - [21] Originally by: Har Ganeth Make plates affect the agility of a ship aswell as the max velocity... just give them mass like the AB's so using a oversized plate would make your ship have the agility of a BS.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.09.12 15:08:00 - [22] "why not just make plates a percentage thing rather than a fixed +<insert armour amount here>, have a +<insert percentage value here> instead" Percentage might make it too difficult to balance on the 'small' end of plates range, since frigates and cruisers both need the speed. If you make say, 400mm plate slow down a ship by 30% to discourage interceptors from using it, this plate will be equally 'lethal' to a cruiser... while offering relatively small hp increase. If on the other hand that plate weights something like 500.000 kg, it won't affect cruiser much (being it's maybe 5% of cruiser weight) but for a frigate that's 33-50% weight increase and they'll probably prefer something like 200mm plate with 200.000 kg penalty or something similar o.O;
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.09.12 15:36:00 - [23] Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 11/09/2005 17:10:28 Originally by: Har Ganeth Make plates affect the agility of a ship aswell as the max velocity... There is no "problem", except PERHAPS with the Thorax. And THAT should be solved by fixing the Thorax, NOT by a change which will affect a LOT of ship setups outside the thorax. Plus, a smaller plate would have the same effect on agility as a larger one, hence TOTALLY screwing ANY plated setup. And given CCP's boost to plates recently, I don't think they're gonna do that. Allow me to counter. A Thorax is balanced without oversized plates, hence fixing (nerfing) a ship in order to balance an inherently unintentional situation is just wrong. CCP changed the boost amount of the plates in order to make them more viable for the ships they were supposed to be fitted on, and the result of the boost gives us an indication that it was for the better were it not for the myriad of oversized plate setups. In fact, plates and shield extenders need to be boosted a wee bit more. As for smaller plates having the same effect on agility as larger ones, this is not the case if the agility is nerfed by a numerical value rather than a percentual value. I.e. instead of reducing agilty by 10%, a 1600mm plate increases the mass of the ship it is fitted on by 5 million KG. This means a cruiser fitting a 1600mm plate will have it's MWD/AB efficiency and agility (I think) reduced to 1/6th of previously. Agility will become about inbetween cruiser and BShip. As for the plated cruiser hypothesis you have, this is inherently untrue. A plated cruiser has essentially the same weaponry with equal or more net firepower as the frigate/interceptor. This means that the cruiser, with more than five times the hitpoints and ability to fit a heavier repairer, will have an advantage over the smaller ships that is not of this world. What more effective defences are there than smaller guns and better tank? Verily, sacrificing the medium armour repairer for a small armour repairer and you can fit a medium nosferatu. However, will the nosferatu save you if the ceptors are orbiting outside 10km? No, the 1600mm vs 800mm plates are not a genuine choice. You select the 800mm plate only if you cannot fit the 1600mm plate. I suggest you do a problem analysis with the basic rule that a ship (type) is not dependent on the module (types) it fits to be effective. If you come to the conclusion that a ship type is dependent on a type of module to be effective, and that module is not defined in it's assigned role (which Gemini ships do not have), then there is a problem. -- I'm in to murder, arson, and pillaging. I differe from a soldier in nothing but name and allegience.
Har Ganeth	Posted - 2005.09.12 16:07:00 - [24] Originally by: Moominer This is just more short-sighted requests for nerfs Not a short-sighted nerf at all, but a realistic portrayal of how slapping big fat plates to a ship might affect ship handling IRL.
Lilan Kahn	Posted - 2005.09.12 16:22:00 - [25] j0s read my idea ya nubber Originally by: Eris Discordia We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.09.12 16:26:00 - [26] "j0s read my idea ya nubber " omg, owned. That'll teach me to skim over threads ;p
Moominer	Posted - 2005.09.12 21:11:00 - [27] Originally by: Har Ganeth Not a short-sighted nerf at all, but a realistic portrayal of how slapping big fat plates to a ship might affect ship handling IRL. Yes, because we should all balance virtual video games based on RL People need to look at the plate situation as a whole. If oversized plating is nerfed out of existance (like Oversized ABing was, even if that was needed there was no need to make it so utterly usless that it's not an option at all) it is going to effect all ship setups that use them, even the setups that require oversized plates to bring themselves up-to-par. Only some ships setups overperform using oversized plating, maybe those ships should be looked at more closely instead of making oversized plating usless on all ships.
Hamatitio	Posted - 2005.09.12 21:16:00 - [28] Oversized plate solution: Frigate class: 50-100mm Cruisr: 200mm 400mm Battleship 800mm 1600mm ------ Director of Ganking: Deathrow Inc
Noriath	Posted - 2005.09.12 21:52:00 - [29] Originally by: Hamatitio Oversized plate solution: Frigate class: 50-100mm Cruisr: 200mm 400mm Battleship 800mm 1600mm The fitting reqs say that 800mm should go on a cruiser. They also say that 1600 is the small plate for a battleship. It should be more like: Nobody uses it anyways: 50mm Frigs: 100, 200mm Cruisers: 400, 800mm Battleships: 1600, 3200mm
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.09.12 22:45:00 - [30] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 12/09/2005 22:49:28 Originally by: Sorja Originally by: Joshua Keeling Sure if you do the same to shield extenders. Which is something we 'eligible' shield extender users don't care about because they are simply not worth using excepted on very few ships (Ferox and assault launcher Cerberus come to mind). In fact, plates are the way to go on many Caldari ships, even on some ships with shield boost bonus like the Moa. Now, if shield extenders are brought on line HP wise with plates and their fitting requirements lowered (brought in line too, mind you), we can talk about it. And I see no reason to nerf plates in the first place. Nerfs are bad, k? Yep. Boost shield extenders plzkthx. Once there's a more level playing field... And Ithildin? They KNEW about "oversized" plates (I don't accept that term, btw) and didn't fix. Your argument fails on that alone. Oh, plus I have, can, and will again kill plated cruisers in a interceptor. Your advantages are speed and sig radius, which the cruiser CANNOT match. And if you do your type of analysis, I'd point you to other games. See: MWD/AB. Essential for 99% of setups outside fleet. CCP obviously disagrees with not having certain modules as a requirement. If you are NOT facing BS, that plate is a worthless LUMP. As for 800 vs 1600, yes the 1600 is nice. BUT. But, you give up a an awful lot for that plate, and you can fit a deacent rack of MEDIUM weapons and that 800. And a lot of HAC's use 800's. And so on. Don't make a straw man argument, you know they're used. And heck, I fought some unplated cruisers TODAY. And they fought well. So... In any case, given CCP have spent so long making people WANT to fly anything smaller than a BS in combat, I doubt they're going to listen to the nerf-whiners. Stop trying to reastically reduce viable ship setups. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."

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.