| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bronson Hughes
The KAOS Holdings Group
4
   |
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
(I'm basing this post on shield hardeners for simplicity, but it would apply more-or-less equally to armor hardeners.)
Right now, we have two choices when it comes to active resist modules: hardeners that provide a goodly amount of protection against a single damage type, and Invulnerability Fields that provide somewhat less protection against all damage types. If you're running a tank with multiple hardeners, this works great: plug your holes, and slap on an Invul Field for a little extra help if you have room.
But what if you're running a tank and only have room for one hardener? Do you run an EM hardener to plug that hole and leave Thermal low, or run an Invul Field and leave EM still pretty weak?
I'd like to propose for folks running single hardener tanks another option. A two-resist hardener. Fitting requirements, cap usage, and level of protection provided would be somewhere between single resist hardeners and Invul fields, but applied to two resists instead of one. And there would only be three: one with EM/Thermal, one with Kinetic/Thermal, and one with Explosive/Kinetic, one each to roughly counter each of the main type of ship guns. As an example:
EM Ward Field I
1 PG
40 CPU
2 cap/sec
50% resist to EM
Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
1PG
40 CPU
4 cap/sec
25% resist to EM/Thermal/Kinetic/Explosive
Laser Ward Field I / Hybrid Deflection Field I / Projectile Dampening Field I
1PG
40 CPU
3 cap/sec
32.5% resists to EM/Thermal, Kinetic/Thermal, or Explosive/Kinetic
Keep the resists on the new units low enough that running two separate hardeners is still stronger than running two of the new ones (i.e. EM + Thermal hardener > 2x Laser Ward Fields). These modules aren't about making strong tanks stronger, they're about giving folks with a tight module budget some extra options.
Do you want an EM and Thermal hardener, or do you want a Laser Ward Field and another midslot?
Do you leave a Thermal hole by running an EM hardener on a single hardener shield tank, or do you sacrifice some EM protection for more balanced laser protection?
Thoughts?
|
Mingja
Perkone
Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 13:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why do we need more tank than we can allready fit?
how you fit a tank involves decisions... why should we get rid of them? |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
1920
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:But what if you're running a tank and only have room for one hardener? Do you run an EM hardener to plug that hole and leave Thermal low, or run an Invul Field and leave EM still pretty weak?
This is exactly the reason why your proposal would be bad. You need to make choices and deal with consequences. If you cannot squeeze in enough tank maybe you should rethink your fit or use more suitable ship or just fly around with that glaring hole in resists hoping nobody would take advantage of it.
Not supported.
I am not my skills but...
http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schmata_Bastanold |
Bronson Hughes
The KAOS Holdings Group
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:This is exactly the reason why your proposal would be bad. You need to make choices and deal with consequences. If you cannot squeeze in enough tank maybe you should rethink your fit or use more suitable ship or just fly around with that glaring hole in resists hoping nobody would take advantage of it.
Not supported.
This would be just one more choice, one with it's own consequences. It wouldn't make tanks any stronger, just a bit more flexible while encouraging more creative fittings.
To me, EvE has always been balancing choices with consequences, not limiting choices. As long as a new modules carries it's own consequences, why is having more choices a bad thing? |
Seliah
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
179
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
This has already been suggested before, and shut down for very good reasons.
Bronson Hughes wrote:
This would be just one more choice, one with it's own consequences. It wouldn't make tanks any stronger, just a bit more flexible while encouraging more creative fittings.
This makes tanks stronger as you can more easily (i.e with less modules) customize which resists you wish to boost and by how much. With modules increasing either 1, 2 or 4 resists, you can pretty much plug any kind of hole on every resists you have too easily. Also, a very large portion of damage sources in EVE deal 2 different types of damage. Having dual resist modules would make it too easy to counter specific weapon types.
Bronson Hughes wrote:
As long as a new modules carries it's own consequences, why is having more choices a bad thing?
Because choices have to be balanced. In this case they're not. |
Bronson Hughes
The KAOS Holdings Group
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 14:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Seliah wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote:
As long as a new modules carries it's own consequences, why is having more choices a bad thing?
Because choices have to be balanced. In this case they're not.
Mission runners have gotten Bastion Modules and MJDs in my time away, pretty much enabling them to PvE in GodMode with Marauders, and you call this unbalanced? Okay. Would you see these hardeners as an acceptable idea if the modules were incredibly expensive or only able to be fit on incredibly expensive ships?
(This may sound like a whine, but it's just me trying to make a point about balanced gameplay. I generally have no problem with people being willing to risk big ISK to make big ISK.) |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
432
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 22:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:This is exactly the reason why your proposal would be bad. You need to make choices and deal with consequences. If you cannot squeeze in enough tank maybe you should rethink your fit or use more suitable ship or just fly around with that glaring hole in resists hoping nobody would take advantage of it.
Not supported. This would be just one more choice, one with it's own consequences. It wouldn't make tanks any stronger, just a bit more flexible while encouraging more creative fittings. To me, EvE has always been balancing choices with consequences, not limiting choices. As long as a new modules carries it's own consequences, why is having more choices a bad thing?
Where are your consequences for the new mods though? All I saw was a bit higher fttting requirments. I am core fitting eilite, I can shoe horn in some mods if need be. I am also not a t2 or death mindset player, I can drop in some named gear and not feel dirty about it.
When you see shielf fits for example you may have noticed many will run2-3 invuls. With the notes that fit tank to taste, invuls fit to show they clear fitting grid.
I am also not opposed to pushing fitting mods/rigs.
As long as I see some benefit I can and will slap in a pg rig and low slot mod and not live by too many fitting mods is bad thing rule. Especially with your dual resist idea. If a pg mod gets me what I need to push dual resist fittings that have me better off then DCU, well then DCU can go.
Especially on shield tankers from caldari side. Where the PVP commandment of though shall fit DCU is followed, imo, to makethe fit police zealots in corp/alliance happy. The armour and hull resists do nothing for me caldari side. My shields broken I am in spam a celestial to try for pod clearing mode. Caldari ships ship descriptions tend to be very accurate. When they say they emphasize shields at the expense of armour and hull they aren't lying about it lol.
|
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark
213
|
Posted - 2014.05.21 23:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
So Amarr and Minmatar put anti hybrids in to fill their weaknesses, what do Cal/Gal put in? |
Orla- King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
65
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 00:11:00 -
[9] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:So Amarr and Minmatar put anti hybrids in to fill their weaknesses, what do Cal/Gal put in?
Puppies? |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2928
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Armor has something like this already in the reactive armor hardener (which for cap reasons doesn't fit on small ships but is still decent).
I do not like this idea as it would seriously weaken ganking. (Most ganks are kin/therm and tanking both requires quite a bit currently).
EVE rule 1: Never undock anything you can't afford to lose. Rule 2: Never trust anyone in-game unless you are sleeping with them IRL.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Psychoactive Stimulant
92
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 01:52:00 -
[11] - Quote
It's called a reactive hardener... oh wait. |
Tabris Katz
The Ecstatic Cult of Dionysus
20
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 09:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Speaking of reactive armor hardener a question does arrise. Why haven't we seen a reactive shield hardener yet? |
Unkind Omen
Next Day Sun
40
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 10:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tabris Katz wrote:Speaking of reactive armor hardener a question does arrise. Why haven't we seen a reactive shield hardener yet?
Because you don't want to see passive armor regeneration. |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
181
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 11:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
As long as there no raising the mean ehp above what could be achived with an invuln theres no issues.
We would need a full set though
em/therm
em/kin
em/exp
therm/kin
therm/exp
kin/exp |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1409
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:31:00 -
[15] - Quote
I have suggested this enough times before.
You need to boost it to 35%. Trust me. I've run the numbers too many times. 35% for tech 1 and 40% for tech 2.
Bronson Hughes wrote:Keep the resists on the new units low enough that running two separate hardeners is still stronger than running two of the new ones Why not high enough that they are about the same or slightly better with just two hardeners? They already become progressively worse in comparison when you fit any more.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1409
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I do not like this idea as it would seriously weaken ganking. (Most ganks are kin/therm and tanking both requires quite a bit currently). Actually it would only have a strong impact on ships using 3 or fewer slots for their tank. That's mostly frigates and destroyers, or ships using very little tank. It won't weaken ganking gank targets, but it might weaken ganking those little frigates you find roaming through nullsec from time to time when newbies get into a nullsec corp for the first time.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1409
|
Posted - 2014.05.22 19:48:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I do not like this idea as it would seriously weaken ganking. (Most ganks are kin/therm and tanking both requires quite a bit currently). Actually it would only have a strong impact on ships using 3 or fewer slots for their tank. That's mostly frigates and destroyers, or ships using very little tank. It won't weaken ganking gank targets, but it might weaken ganking those little frigates you find roaming through nullsec from time to time when newbies get into a nullsec corp for the first time.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
And bring back the missile Inquisitor!! |
Sabriz Adoudel
Mission BLITZ
2937
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tabris Katz wrote:Speaking of reactive armor hardener a question does arrise. Why haven't we seen a reactive shield hardener yet?
Shields got ASBs, armor got AARs and RAHs.
Shields come out way ahead out of that tradeoff. While both the AAR and RAH have seen some use, neither is close to the power level of the ASB.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=346564 - a proposal to overhaul the Logistics skill
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238931 - an idea for a new form of hybrid PVE/PVP content.
www.minerbumping.com - ganking miners and causing chaos |
Captain Finklestein
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.23 01:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
Put 35% in each resist (T2).
Compared to 30% for invul, you get a 5% increase in both resists for completely sacrificing the other 2.
If it still seems to OP, increase CPU until it's not.
Also, although off-topic confirming ASB are way overpowered. It has to do with the PG in my opinion... up the PG to close to AAR levels and it balances out a bit. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |