| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
j0sephine
   |
Posted - 2005.10.10 19:55:00 -
[1]
Well, looks like there's been some further changes to armour plates on SiSi... the mass penalty now varies, depending on the plate 'version' -- the better named module, the less penalty.
400mm plates: from 1.500.000 kg (steel) to 1.100.000 kg (tungsten) ... 100.000 kg difference per plate type
800mm plates: from 7.500.000 kg (steel) to 5.500.000 kg (tungsten) ... 500.000 kg difference per plate type
1600mm plates: from 15.000.000 kg (steel) to 11.000.000 kg (tungsten) ... 1.000.000 kg difference per plate type
(it's similar for smaller plates too, didn't bother to list them)
it's way to high as it is still, imo, reducing it to half of current values would probably do the trick... still, at least a step in good direction >>;
|
Idara
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 19:59:00 -
[2]
What do Shield Extenders penalize again?
--------------------------------------------------------
Lance Corporal
BSC Military
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 20:20:00 -
[3]
signature radius
-------------
Fight against the filo-communist t2 monopolies! Down with CCCP's one-week plan! Viva la revoluci¾n! o/
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 20:24:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Meridius on 10/10/2005 20:23:50
 Originally by: j0sephine
Well, looks like there's been some further changes to armour plates on SiSi... the mass penalty now varies, depending on the plate 'version' -- the better named module, the less penalty.
400mm plates: from 1.500.000 kg (steel) to 1.100.000 kg (tungsten) ... 100.000 kg difference per plate type
800mm plates: from 7.500.000 kg (steel) to 5.500.000 kg (tungsten) ... 500.000 kg difference per plate type
1600mm plates: from 15.000.000 kg (steel) to 11.000.000 kg (tungsten) ... 1.000.000 kg difference per plate type
(it's similar for smaller plates too, didn't bother to list them)
it's way to high as it is still, imo, reducing it to half of current values would probably do the trick... still, at least a step in good direction >>;
Probably even more reason to continue using tungsten over T2(is t2 as light as tungsten?).
________________________________________________________
|
Aakron
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 20:33:00 -
[5]
Should nano not be the lightest?
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 21:02:00 -
[6]
Edited by: j0sephine on 10/10/2005 21:02:49
"Probably even more reason to continue using tungsten over T2(is t2 as light as tungsten?)."
Couldn't check since the market is broken on SiSi atm, and there's no tech.2 plates in the hangar... :/
(nano plates have 5% speed penalty instead of 10% like the others but yup, would expect them to be lightest one, too)
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 21:07:00 -
[7]
Mass and speed penalty... yep, still a kick in the gooch.
One or the other, not both.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 21:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: j0sephine
(nano plates have 5% speed penalty instead of 10% like the others but yup, would expect them to be lightest one, too)
where do the nanos fit in the range of mass increases?
--
This Zig. For great justice!
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 21:15:00 -
[9]
"where do the nanos fit in the range of mass increases?"
Something like second worst... it's linear relation -- the more hp module gives, the less it weights.
so it's like:
steel -> nanofiber -> titanium -> carbonide -> tungsten
|
Hllaxiu
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 21:18:00 -
[10]
Shield extenders are a bit more modest too.
One other thing - if you want see the cheesiest thing every outfit an Armageddon with 8 of the best Damage Controls. I have 7 on my domi and it has sick resistances.
|
Reatu Krentor
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 21:39:00 -
[11]
Easy fix for what they want( a plate rebalance  ), but I'd prefer it differently. With a what I'd call Thrust Compensation, like each ship has a certain amount of thrust it puts out which gives it the maximum velocity(of course thats not how eve does it). Well this thrust compensation would act as a modifier to the velocity modifier based on mass of ship and this. So eg. a 100mm plate on a basic frigate would reduce velocity by 5% while a 400mm plate on the same frigate would reduce speed by 25%Formula I used is to get those values is: ModdedVelocityMod = 1 - ((ThrustCompensation / ShipMass) * (1 - VelocityPenalty)). Where ThrustCompensation is the new plate attribute. eg. 100mm Steel Plate: Thrust Compensation: 500000 N - 400mm Steel Plate: Thrust Compensation: 2500000 N.
------------------------------------------
The ammatar are not the enemy, they are the smoke and mirrors of the amarr. |
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.10.10 23:28:00 -
[12]
I still think that they are still off. the old numbers were fine if they shifted everything on over.
50mm plates -gone
100mm and 200mm plates for frigs
400mm and 800mm plates for cruisers
1600mm and a new 3200mm plate for battleships.
or another option would be to boost the armor bonus on all plates along with this nerf. so a 400mm plate will give about the same as a 800mm plate now with the same reqs as that 800mm plate and so on for the rest of the plates
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more info |
Altrex Stoppel
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 01:32:00 -
[13]
The new 3200 plate sounds like it could make some ships pretty damn beastly. The Apoc could have some sick armor for instance.
|
FalloutBoy
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 01:42:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Altrex Stoppel
The new 3200 plate sounds like it could make some ships pretty damn beastly. The Apoc could have some sick armor for instance.
thats fine as long as the requirements equally nerf its abilty then to put any kind of guns on it (akin to fitting 1600 plates currently on cruisers)
need a sig? Gallery Contact me for more info |
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Shield extenders are a bit more modest too.
One other thing - if you want see the cheesiest thing every outfit an Armageddon with 8 of the best Damage Controls. I have 7 on my domi and it has sick resistances.
I thought you can only fit 1 or 2?
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:15:00 -
[16]
Youre supposed to only be able to fit 1, but they havent gotten that part in yet. So you can structure-tank a domi like mad.. yo?
-------------
Fight against the filo-communist t2 monopolies! Down with CCCP's one-week plan! Viva la revoluci¾n! o/
|
Altrex Stoppel
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:19:00 -
[17]
Originally by: FalloutBoy
Originally by: Altrex Stoppel
The new 3200 plate sounds like it could make some ships pretty damn beastly. The Apoc could have some sick armor for instance.
thats fine as long as the requirements equally nerf its abilty then to put any kind of guns on it (akin to fitting 1600 plates currently on cruisers)
Good point FalloutBoy I guess you're right. 
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 02:38:00 -
[18]
w00t, more changes, and for the better \o/
mass penalty on plates has been drastically reduced. The numbers atm are as follows:
50mm: 18.750 kg
100mm: 37.500 kg
200mm: 187.500 kg
400mm: 375.000 kg
800mm: 1.875.000 kg
1600mm: 3.750.000 kg
... these are for stock tech.1 steel plates, the named plates weight less, similar to how it's reported in the first post of this thread. e.g 400 mm tungsten weights 275.000 kg, and 1600mm tungsten 2.750.000 kg
this looks very reasonable now tbh, and between it and the fixes to shield tanking stuff, starts looking like christmas come early >>;;
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 04:54:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Gierling on 13/10/2005 05:00:54
This is acceptable!
Although the speed penelty needs to be adjusted accordingly.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 05:18:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/10/2005 05:19:25
Originally by: FalloutBoy
I still think that they are still off. the old numbers were fine if they shifted everything on over.
50mm plates -gone
100mm and 200mm plates for frigs
400mm and 800mm plates for cruisers
1600mm and a new 3200mm plate for battleships.
or another option would be to boost the armor bonus on all plates along with this nerf. so a 400mm plate will give about the same as a 800mm plate now with the same reqs as that 800mm plate and so on for the rest of the plates
Get out of it. Realistically, 200 and 400 for frigs, 400 and 800 for cruisers, 800 and 1600 for BS.
And you're STILL looking at a 25% speed penalty on most Inties for a 200mm plate. That's still suicidal.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 05:37:00 -
[21]
Edited by: keepiru on 13/10/2005 05:39:33
11% of interceptor mass + mass added by mwd actually - 1625000kg for claw. And thats for t1/2, much lower for tungsten.
Would be right if they got rid of the fixed speed penalty, about time too.
-------------
WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P |
Pottsey
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 05:51:00 -
[22]
ôif you want see the cheesiest thing every outfit an Armageddon with 8 of the best Damage Controls. I have 7 on my domi and it has sick resistances.ö
If thatÆs cheesy what do you call a Domi with 7 of the best Damage Controls and 5 Dread Invulnerability fields? The cap holds. That was a fun ship but its never going to last.
_________________________________________________
Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you. |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 06:29:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Pottsey
ôif you want see the cheesiest thing every outfit an Armageddon with 8 of the best Damage Controls. I have 7 on my domi and it has sick resistances.ö
If thatÆs cheesy what do you call a Domi with 7 of the best Damage Controls and 5 Dread Invulnerability fields? The cap holds. That was a fun ship but its never going to last.
y not 7 damage controls and 5 hull reppers?
--
This Zig. For great justice! |
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 06:41:00 -
[24]
Edited by: keepiru on 13/10/2005 06:44:10
108tf for every Large Inefficient Hull Repair Unit is why, most likely :/
Anyway, damage controls are active modules now - 30 second cycle, 1 cap activation - and you can only have 1 on at a time, so that's the end of the fun ;(
-------------
WTB: a Faction Micro Smartbomb :P |
Kaeten
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 07:52:00 -
[25]
omg, my eyes hurt, people are talknig about hull tanking. argghhhhhhhhhhhh
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 08:41:00 -
[26]
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 13/10/2005 03:08:40
w00t, more changes, and for the better \o/
mass penalty on plates has been drastically reduced. The numbers atm are as follows:
50mm: 18.750 kg
100mm: 37.500 kg
200mm: 187.500 kg
400mm: 375.000 kg
800mm: 1.875.000 kg
1600mm: 3.750.000 kg
So it's square one again. Why can't they just make proper sized plates worth while instead of making oversized plates the standard for all PvP? 3.75 million kg isn't very much for a cruiser, merely 40% weight increase (results in about 24% speed reduction when MWDing)
I am throughly concerned that cruiser guns will continue to be extinct on non-HACs due to an innate imbalance concerning cruisers survivability that requires oversized plates.
Also, on inspection it is so blatantly obvious that there's a strong and a weak plate for each Gemini ship class. Why doesn't the devs adapt the plates to this? 50mm plate if you want slightly more HP on an inty but not be slowed very much or a 100mm plate if you want much HP.
On inspection the current values speaks one thing very, very, clearly: 50mm and 100mm plates might as well be removed from game entirely. The 200mm plate is better in every way, not even the PG cost would make you think about the 100mm plate...
So. Where's the battleship sized plates, then?
wheat barley kill anything? are you oats of your mind? I corn belive you just said that, rice I'm off to bed |
Jenny Spitfire
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 11:04:00 -
[27]
Hi. I am a bit new to this game and I am willing to learn ;)
What has weight got to do here, as in what will the increase in weight cause?
Thanks.
RecruitMe@NOINT! |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 11:10:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Hi. I am a bit new to this game and I am willing to learn ;)
What has weight got to do here, as in what will the increase in weight cause?
Thanks.
* You'll turn your ship more slowly (although not from decloaking when you've just entered system as you technically do not have a direction then)
* You'll accelerate slightly slower
* Your Micro Warpdrive or Afterburner will be less efficient (will give a weaker boost)
* Let you write hillarious weight jokes about your ship without having to get into a Dominix.
wheat barley kill anything? are you oats of your mind? I corn belive you just said that, rice I'm off to bed |
without
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 11:18:00 -
[29]
new values are too low,
need to stop cepters having more hp than crusiers, and cruisers having more hp than bs
|
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 11:45:00 -
[30]
Originally by: without
new values are too low,
need to stop cepters having more hp than crusiers, and cruisers having more hp than bs
Survivability vs insta damage is a good thing.
|
Diana Merris
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 12:57:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Lansfear
Originally by: without
new values are too low,
need to stop cepters having more hp than crusiers, and cruisers having more hp than bs
Survivability vs insta damage is a good thing.
Agreed, which is why they should stop playing around with all these half measures and give all ships a major increase in HP. The new mass is a clear admission that ships need the HP to be usable. Eveyone uses plates, they know everyone uses plates but they are just playing around with the numbers on the plates rather then increasing the HP on the ships themselves.
Stop treating the symptoms and cure the disease !
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 12:57:00 -
[32]
"new values are too low,
need to stop cepters having more hp than crusiers, and cruisers having more hp than bs"
think they're quite okay, actually. Might not look like much, but 400 mm plate on the interceptor slows it down to ~3-3.5 km/sec which is enough to say, make it possible to hurt them with light missiles for a change, or to kill them with long distance inty which sacrifices the hp for speed. Overall, the heavy plate is still useful but at the same time it starts to make sense to look into alternatives, like smaller plate and armour hardener, or pair of hardeners, or whatever... depending on the task.
on sidenote, damage controls are now active modules and only one can be run at the time... so no more stacking them for insane resists. ;s
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 16:29:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 13/10/2005 16:33:05
Originally by: without
new values are too low,
need to stop cepters having more hp than crusiers, and cruisers having more hp than bs
Why? If we want to sacrifice a LOT of grid and CPU to do it, why shpuld we not be able to? And you can allways stick a 1600 on a BS (which fits very easily), and have more hp than us again!
And as I said in the other thread, 25% less speed in MWD is basically suicide.
"Do the maths...you're making yourself very vulnrable to BS fire because of the MWD sig radius bloom (did you forget that?). It's basically suicide to try ANY sort of closing manouver. Missile ships, well, rrgardless of the heading you're going to be hit much harder if you try and MWD.
ANYTHING which removes a good deal of speed when you use a MWD is extremely dangerous - to YOU. I've looked, before, in the differences between named and T2 MWD's and there is a substantial difference in vulnrability - and this is FAR more significant than just 25% sig radius and 200m/s under MWD.
A 200mm RT plate is NOT especially effective either, compared to the 400's of today.
Say NO to plate mass. Plate mass makes them sucicidal for frigate-sized ships"
Diana Merris, the point is that that's NOT true. We make a MAJOR sacrifice for "oversized" (I don't consider plates you can fit oversized btw) plates, and the hp involved. It's ONE sort of setup. There are dozens of other setups, most of which should NOT have the extra hit points.
The ISSUE is with cruisers. Cruisers cannot avoid BS fire, as frigates can avoid cruiser fire. It is purely a tracking/movement speed issue, NOT a hit point one.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 16:55:00 -
[34]
**** THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO PLATE CHANGES ****
Put the hit points back to where they were before the boost.
Yes, they may WELL be overly effective now (okay, they ARE). The thing is, they were useful, and USED before. Assing plate mass has all sorts of side effects and will lead to a major DROP in their usage with the associated loss of ship diversity.
Leave extenders WITH the boost (leave them alone). They are allready harder to fit.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 17:03:00 -
[35]
time to decrease the shield extender penalty
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put your panties on your head! |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 17:13:00 -
[36]
"time to decrease the shield extender penalty"
They're already reduced to +7 on medium extender and +25 on large if i remember right, which comes out comparable to how these adjusted plates affects speed of ships that fit them ^^
|
Naughty Boy
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 17:20:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
The ISSUE is with cruisers. Cruisers cannot avoid BS fire, as frigates can avoid cruiser fire. It is purely a tracking/movement speed issue, NOT a hit point one.
I'm not sure if i understand correctly what you are saying.
There are a lot of problems with frigates and cruisers being not survivable enough, due to tracking issues related to nos/neut/heavy drones and large guns for cruisers. Using plates (big/oversized/whatever plates) allows currently to partially overcome those problems. As you say, hitpoints are not really the issue. Hence, tracking of BS equipment should be adressed, not big/oversized/whatever plates.
I don't know how plates should be, but i think that it just doesn't make sense to me to campaign for plates while something else is the problem, by your own words.
Sincerly Yours, The Naughty Boy.
---
Originally by: theRaptor
Its even funnier when half the forum is crying for damage mod nerfs and the other half for plate nerfs. 
|
Troezar
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 17:32:00 -
[38]
I'm surprised nos don't just get a % reduction based on sig of the target, would solve the prob of no tracking and WTFBBQing frigates
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 17:50:00 -
[39]
Troezar,
It's been suggested (in a non linear way...say a 100 energy BS nos would do 100 to BS, 75 to cruisers, 50 to frigs and 25-30 to interceptors) before now, by myself and others. Yes, a large Neut would still one-shot a frigates cap, but that's fine because of it's own energy cost and higher fitting req. (tradeoffs ++)
Naughty Boy,
Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. Except I think guns vs frigates is fine as-is. Guns vs cruisers needs as look, as does Nos/Neut. Thing is, plates are up for discussion and the simplest soloution - afaik - is to revert them to pre-boost status if they're too good (as many people seem to feel right now, and I can't entirely disagree).
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 18:40:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Diana Merris
Agreed, which is why they should stop playing around with all these half measures and give all ships a major increase in HP. The new mass is a clear admission that ships need the HP to be usable. Eveyone uses plates, they know everyone uses plates but they are just playing around with the numbers on the plates rather then increasing the HP on the ships themselves.
Stop treating the symptoms and cure the disease !
Originally by: Dev Blog
All ships will be tested with flat 25% more Hitpoints
This is a considerable increase when taking into consideration all the other increased defense measures, so the end result is more than 25%. As a result, this 25% addition might be reverted or changed (up or down) depending on testing of it. This increase might vary between ship classes or tech levels.
?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 18:59:00 -
[41]
"tested".
And it's NOT the disease, it's a symptom of BS being able to easily hit cruisers.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
R31D
|
Posted - 2005.10.13 19:12:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Gierling
Mass and speed penalty... yep, still a kick in the gooch.
One or the other, not both.
Being kicked in the gooch isn't too painful really
Free bumpage for all |
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 08:31:00 -
[43]
Devs, please (please please) remove the static -10%/-5% speed penalty. It makes no sense nowadays, the mass takes care of that in a much more flaxible way, and it makes the smaller plates useless. If needs be increase the masses again a bit to make things balanced, but get rid of the $$#& penalty. Otherwise everyone will just fit the "oversized" plates and ignore the rest, and we're back to where we started.
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 10:33:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
"tested".
And it's NOT the disease, it's a symptom of BS being able to easily hit cruisers.
Yes, "tested". You expected them to just throw out increased hitpoints without testing them first?
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 12:44:00 -
[45]
Er...
Some ideas are so bad, you can see them comming. Remember missile arming distance?
Yeh.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:09:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
"Do the maths...you're making yourself very vulnrable to BS fire because of the MWD sig radius bloom (did you forget that?). It's basically suicide to try ANY sort of closing manouver. Missile ships, well, rrgardless of the heading you're going to be hit much harder if you try and MWD.
That is nonsense. Take a 425mm railgun on a megathron, motion prediction V, BS V and two tracking computer II's:
Base Tracking: 0.0096 rad/sec
Modified by skills: 0.015 rad/sec
With Tracking Computers active: x1.5546
Total: 0.02331956109 rads/sec
Now look at a claw with Interceptor IV, acceleration control IV, 1mn MWD II fitted:
Sig radius: 24m
With MWD active: 660% boost= 182.4m
Now look at the required velocity for a 50% hit chance at various ranges:
100km: 1063 m/sec
80km: 851 m/sec
60km: 638 m/sec
40km: 425 m/sec
20km: 213 m/sec
Given said claw is still going to be capable of >3km/sec you arenÆt going to have a problem, unless of course you fly straight at the megathron.
Oh and any hits at 100km plus will be
a)rare, b)with tungsten rounds at best
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on" |
von Torgo
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:23:00 -
[47]
Edited by: von Torgo on 14/10/2005 13:23:30
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Devs, please (please please) remove the static -10%/-5% speed penalty. It makes no sense nowadays, the mass takes care of that in a much more flaxible way, and it makes the smaller plates useless. If needs be increase the masses again a bit to make things balanced, but get rid of the $$#& penalty. Otherwise everyone will just fit the "oversized" plates and ignore the rest, and we're back to where we started.
Agreed. Please, remove the static penalty and compensate it with slight mass increase. That would make much more sense.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:37:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Gronsak on 14/10/2005 13:37:59
playing around with mass isnt gona fix the problem,
its stupid that a crusier can fit the biggest defensive item in game, something that with skills adds 5k HP to armor, which is roughly 400-500% increase) crazy??
just increase the 800mm plat to 1600mm plate PG
increase the 400mm to 800mmm plate PG ect
double the 1600mm plate PG
actually make it impossible to fit the plate, i cant fit a neutron blaster cannon onto a crusier why can i fit a 1600mm plate onto a crusier
do what ever is needed to make it impossible to fit 1600mm onto crusiers rather than speed penalities
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.10.14 13:40:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Er...
Some ideas are so bad, you can see them comming. Remember missile arming distance?
Yeh.
...what? What's this supposed to be relevant to?
|
Nazoma
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 06:51:00 -
[50]
Extremely usefull thread
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.10.18 07:26:00 -
[51]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 18/10/2005 07:27:00
Back in February when Sobeseki Pawi and I originally suggested this whole idea, this was what we proposed:
Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 02/08/2005 23:15:44
[...]
Now, anyone who knows how ship mass works will understand this. They think that we're nerfing plates into oblivion? Get real and think about it for a moment.
Plate: Mass Bonus
50mm: 75,000
100mm: 150,000
200mm: 300,000
400mm: 600,000
800mm: 1,200,000
1600mm: 2,400,000
Frigates have 1 million kg mass minimum. Cruisers 10, Battleships 100.
Now, a 100mm plate on a frig would be a 15% decrease in agility. A 200mm plate would be a 30% decrease in agility. A 400mm plate would essentially make the ship 60% less agile. Thus, a 400mm plate would have the side effect of pretty drastically decreasing ship speed while orbiting a target closely, while the intended modules are quite reasonable.
If you compare the bonus mass of a plate on its intended class of ship, the result is pretty dang reasonable. Now, personally, I'd tweak these numbers a bit. I'd rather see a percentage type thing, where an intended plate only adds about 10% mass of the ship class it's intended for, but a much higher number when it is fitted on a smaller ship class. I'd do it a bit more like this I think:
Plate: Mass Bonus
50mm: 50,000
100mm: 100,000
200mm: 200,000
400mm: 1,000,000
800mm: 2,000,000
1600mm: 10,000,000
As you can see, the normal plates decrease agility only by 10% or less, while the higher-end plates for a class reach up towards 20%. However, fitting an oversized plate is a mass increase of approximately 100%.
Another interesting note, you would be able to counter the mass bonus of an intended plate by using a nanofiber.
Edit- Another quick idea, I was discussing this with a friend, and a signature radius boost came up as another option. All those sheets of armor have got to be easier to detect, and it could be applied feasibly to Extenders as well if balance became an issue.
I still think my second table in that post is pretty damn reasonable, all we need to do is prevent ships fitting oversized plates, not turn into an anvil with engines.
Link to the original thread if anyone is interested.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 02:01:00 -
[52]
Bump, and new changes ^^
the -10% speed penalty appears to be gone, the plates now add just the fixed mass amount, like listed in previous update.
Interceptor with 400mm plate appears now to move about as fast as they'd with the plate on tranquility, although acceleration is somewhat reduced due to increased mass. More than acceptable given the provided extra hp (seems to still be able to maneuver under fire just ok)
|
Keven
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 03:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Gronsak
Edited by: Gronsak on 14/10/2005 13:37:59
just increase the 800mm plat to 1600mm plate PG
increase the 400mm to 800mmm plate PG ect
double the 1600mm plate PG
You Sir, can go to hell plz, yelling 'Yadda Yadda Bing Bong' all the way down.
|
Wee Dave
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 03:47:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Shield extenders are a bit more modest too.
One other thing - if you want see the cheesiest thing every outfit an Armageddon with 8 of the best Damage Controls. I have 7 on my domi and it has sick resistances.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but didn't the blog on the subject say they would limit Damage Control to one per ship when it hit TQ?
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 03:49:00 -
[55]
"Maybe I'm wrong on this, but didn't the blog on the subject say they would limit Damage Control to one per ship when it hit TQ?"
Aye; it was possible to fit and use more than one damage control for a brief while on test, due to how it was implemented. It's been fixed since then and now works "like intended" ^^;
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 04:27:00 -
[56]
Originally by: j0sephine
the -10% speed penalty appears to be gone, the plates now add just the fixed mass amount, like listed in previous update.
Yay, about time too. \o/
-------------
|
Alex Harumichi
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 08:12:00 -
[57]
Originally by: j0sephine
Bump, and new changes ^^
the -10% speed penalty appears to be gone, the plates now add just the fixed mass amount, like listed in previous update.
Interceptor with 400mm plate appears now to move about as fast as they'd with the plate on tranquility, although acceleration is somewhat reduced due to increased mass. More than acceptable given the provided extra hp (seems to still be able to maneuver under fire just ok)
Huzzah! /me does the happy dance.
This makes the smaller plates usable, since now there isn't that killer -10% speed hanging there... in places where grid is tight or the mass diff is critical, even a 100mm plate may be a good choice now. Nice.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 10:05:00 -
[58]
yes allow cruisers and frigs to increase their HP by 500%. totally unrealistic.
why dont we get a 12800mm plate for BS which uses somethig like 5k PG and 50cpu. would allow bs to have 500% hp boost with a single mod. would you like that?
|
Anjerrai Meloanis
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 11:13:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Gronsak
yes allow cruisers and frigs to increase their HP by 500%. totally unrealistic.
why dont we get a 12800mm plate for BS which uses somethig like 5k PG and 50cpu. would allow bs to have 500% hp boost with a single mod. would you like that?
aye, might as well make it fair and introduce some dreadnaught size plates so battleships can get in on the mod of the month..
uh.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 13:51:00 -
[60]
"yes allow cruisers and frigs to increase their HP by 500%. totally unrealistic."
Totally untrue, too..?
Frigate on test has ~1k hp. tech.2 400mm plate adds 840 hp.
Cruisers on test has ~4k hp. tech.2 1600mm plate adds 3360 hp.
So that's ~85% extra hp in both cases, not 500...
|
Chai N'Dorr
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:03:00 -
[61]
Originally by: j0sephine
The -10% speed penalty appears to be gone, the plates now add just the fixed mass amount, like listed in previous update.
Interceptor with 400mm plate appears now to move about as fast as they'd with the plate on tranquility, although acceleration is somewhat reduced due to increased mass. More than acceptable given the provided extra hp (seems to still be able to maneuver under fire just ok)
Thanks for updating us on this j0. Much appreciated, and I was kinda worried what the plate change would do for my beloved Claw.
_
Short Story: Planetside |
Montero
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:05:00 -
[62]
nice one, cheers for the update. made my day that has.
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:38:00 -
[63]
Originally by: j0sephine
Bump, and new changes ^^
the -10% speed penalty appears to be gone, the plates now add just the fixed mass amount, like listed in previous update.
Interceptor with 400mm plate appears now to move about as fast as they'd with the plate on tranquility, although acceleration is somewhat reduced due to increased mass. More than acceptable given the provided extra hp (seems to still be able to maneuver under fire just ok)
a kick in the ass for shield tankers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put your panties on your head! |
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 14:40:00 -
[64]
Originally by: j0sephine
"time to decrease the shield extender penalty"
They're already reduced to +7 on medium extender and +25 on large if i remember right, which comes out comparable to how these adjusted plates affects speed of ships that fit them ^^
Is that +7 meters?
________________________________________________________
|
Hampstah
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:00:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Nafria kick in the ass for shield tankers[/quote
Sure does seem that way so far. Looks like it's time for me to get on Sisi and take a look.
-----
Beware Rodentz with Gunz
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:03:00 -
[66]
"Is that +7 meters?"
Aye; not sure if the values on shield extenders didn't change too actually, the test client hangs on 'entering station' after last reboot for me... so cannot check :/
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:06:00 -
[67]
Originally by: j0sephine
the test client hangs on 'entering station' after last reboot for me... so cannot check :/
Try logging in again.
________________________________________________________
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:13:00 -
[68]
Edited by: j0sephine on 26/10/2005 15:15:21
Tried, still the same :/
i did find the hidden patch to build 3724 though, maybe that'll fix it. Patching atm.
edit: meh, 3724 is even worse. the progress box just disappears after 'authenticating' stage and that's it :<
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.26 15:24:00 -
[69]
Originally by: j0sephine
Edited by: j0sephine on 26/10/2005 15:15:21
Tried, still the same :/
i did find the hidden patch to build 3724 though, maybe that'll fix it. Patching atm.
edit: meh, 3724 is even worse. the progress box just disappears after 'authenticating' stage and that's it :<
Sisi is pretty laggy atm
Revert back to 3723 if you can, it should work
________________________________________________________
|
Caroline 888
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 11:51:00 -
[70]
What are the latest plate values now guys ??
Im Phoenix's wife and I do all the talking so keep it polite ! |
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 12:42:00 -
[71]
Originally by: j0sephine
"yes allow cruisers and frigs to increase their HP by 500%. totally unrealistic."
Totally untrue, too..?
Frigate on test has ~1k hp. tech.2 400mm plate adds 840 hp.
Cruisers on test has ~4k hp. tech.2 1600mm plate adds 3360 hp.
So that's ~85% extra hp in both cases, not 500...
you know this is untrue
thorax unplated, off the top of my head, say 1500 for shields, armor, structure.=4500HP
say you tank one of these, the armor for instance, that is then 3000HP effictive to armor +1500+1500=6K effictive HP
now tank armor and add a 1600mm plate. with good skills a plate adds 4500HP, so armor is 6k total. effictive its 12k +1500+1500 = 15k effictive HP
so u went from 6k effictive to 15k, thats nearly 300%, im at school so the numbers are not exact but the point is correct.
do u not agree?
also to make the point fair, u shouldnt really count structure, so u go from 4.5k to 13.5k which is over 300% HP increase, which is pretty crazy
and look at any killbord today, u will see the most killed ship is the thorax, the most used ship is the thorax, ie its so overpowered that its the most flown ship ingame
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 13:07:00 -
[72]
Edited by: j0sephine on 14/11/2005 13:08:18
"do u not agree?"
Err, no, i don't actually ^^
Leaving aside dubious calculation you used ('base' armour hp has weight of 1, but the plate hp selectively counts double because ship is armour-tanked?) ... this is 2.5x (not 6x) increase of hp _if tanking is involved_ In other words, it's not like the single plate dropped into single low slot automagically does all that work, you need multiple slots combined for that effect. And by the same logic you used, hardeners are "totally unrealistic" too, because one of them can double effective hp of your ship, and 2 of them -- increase effective hp 4 times... and that's without any penalty to agility and speed of your ship, to boot...
edit: Caroline, the plate attributes in the most recent test build appear to be unchanged from what's reported in the opening post.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 13:27:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Gronsak on 14/11/2005 13:28:10
plated things alone i dont have a big problem with, i mean a cepter doubling its HP is just about bareable.
but a crusier going from untanked shields/structre and 1.5k tanked or untanked armor to
6K TANKED armor is just crazy. you end up with a tank that is the same as a BS and u can rep nearly half as much and have the speed and sig of a crusier.
i mean ive used a tank plate thorax many times to solo kill BS, cepters, frigs, af, other crusiers. u see it makes it way to over powered.
imo just increase the 1600mm plate to 1k PG and the 800mm to 500PG, and the 400mm to 75PG, ect
i mean i love flying the 6k armor, 5 great tracking decent dmg small guns, 8 heavy drone monster for anything and everything i do.
i also like flying plated cepters, but they are out of wack.
|
Caroline 888
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 13:55:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Caroline 888 on 14/11/2005 13:56:39
Every time people use non aurthodox setups a nerf mob hits the forums and call for the rules to be changed - its always the same...
I believe that we should add to eve and not keep changing the goal posts by changing existing modules
Players need to learn to adapt
I fly an ishtar and this rax pirate was so confident in his tank that he locked me at the gate as he did not recon that i could kill him and tank the gate - needless to say i did -leave thigs as they are - loads of overconfident rax pilots and me
Im Phoenix's wife and I do all the talking so keep it polite ! |
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 14:27:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Lygos on 14/11/2005 14:27:59
Can we at least agree that plates on ceptors is a narratively unacceptable collusion? (Much like inherent damage boosts..)
If we had more options in targetting resolution within same size turrets, CCP could give us more play between classes. Then smaller ships could depend more on their maneuverability and less on hp changes. Thus larger ships would be free to add hp mods without fear of upsetting the balance between classes.
Making everything revolve around just a couple axes or even one variable (such as hp) is never going to work.
"Everything I love is combustible." |
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 15:17:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nafri
Originally by: j0sephine
Bump, and new changes ^^
the -10% speed penalty appears to be gone, the plates now add just the fixed mass amount, like listed in previous update.
Interceptor with 400mm plate appears now to move about as fast as they'd with the plate on tranquility, although acceleration is somewhat reduced due to increased mass. More than acceptable given the provided extra hp (seems to still be able to maneuver under fire just ok)
a kick in the ass for shield tankers
Quoted for Truth.
The additional mass is negligible for armored ceptors. The % decrease to speed was not. Everyone will be plated now. Extenders on a ceptor will be crap, while plated ceptors have no serious penalty.
This needs to be worked on a bit more.
Nyxus
Plasmatique> "Cry 'Cartiff' and let slip the dogs of war!" |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 15:48:00 -
[77]
I shouldn't say +25m signature radius is a huge thing for a Large Shield Extender II.
Though I am greatly saddened that the changes did not address oversized plates. At all.
I wish there were more fun skills with Memory as primary. Poor Intaki combat people with low perception... |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 16:15:00 -
[78]
Edited by: j0sephine on 14/11/2005 16:16:42
"The additional mass is negligible for armored ceptors. The % decrease to speed was not."
Well, i've checked the numbers closer in the meantime, and the extra weight does mean some difference when it comes to speed with afb/mwd on, compared to now:
(base speed, afb II speed, mwd II speed)
Crow, no plate: 531 m/sec, 1.42 km/sec, 4.18 km/sec
Crow, tq plate: 478 m/sec, 1.28 km/sec, 3.76 km/sec
Crow, sisi steel plate: 531 m/sec, 1.24 km/sec, 3.45 km/sec
Crow, sisi tungsten plate: 531 m/sec, 1.28 km/sec, 3.62 km/sec
this is coupled with reduced agility... so can't say the plate penalty is lessened in comparions with tq, it's just isn't harsh to the point where you'd dismiss the idea of mounting the plate right off the bat. Which is imo acceptable. o.O
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 17:21:00 -
[79]
What's wrong with a cruiser having the hp of a BS?
Its not like it has the PG or CPU to fit other cool mods. Nor does it have the number of mod slots. Nor does it have the Large turrets.
I seriously fail to see what these whiners are complaining about with cruisers having hte HP of BS's. Its not like they're BS's. Just very slow large HP cruisers.
Friends Forever |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.11.14 17:34:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
What's wrong with a cruiser having the hp of a BS?
Its not like it has the PG or CPU to fit other cool mods. Nor does it have the number of mod slots. Nor does it have the Large turrets.
I seriously fail to see what these whiners are complaining about with cruisers having hte HP of BS's. Its not like they're BS's. Just very slow large HP cruisers.
To me it's a matter of pride. I like cruiser guns. I like cruiser guns on cruisers. With the current plates that is a big "Oh, no, you don't" cause the first thing you put there is a plate. Preferably 1600mm. That leaves you with about the powergrid for frigate guns and not much more. Sadly.
Sadest is that plate cruisers are aeons better than unplated, completely disproportional to what they pay for the plate.
I wish there were more fun skills with Memory as primary. Poor Intaki combat people with low perception... |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |