Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Victoria Astor
Ordine Malleus
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 02:26:51 -
[1] - Quote
Hello everyone,
Do you think we should be able to toggle regeneration of shields on/off?
Benefits: Lower sig. radius, different % per ship class* (while regeneration off) Cons: No shield regeneration This is based on the assumption that sig. radius factors in maximum rate of change of shield.
Concerns:
- Would not this give an innate bonus to armor ships?
- What if a new player doesn't realize his/her shield regeneration is offline?
- Minmatar duality of tank options
- Reduced bomb damage to ships with regen. offline
Possible Solutions:
- Sadly yes, but allow shield based ships to have an initial burst regen of 12.5%* of shields upon activation of regeneration.
- Provide a new icon that indicates that shield regen. is offline or provide a different colour for the shield layer.
- Argh, you rust bucket make things difficult :P Provide that same as Solution 1 since an armor based ship would not likely use an shield rep., see solution below for reasoning.
- None, since CCP bases bomb damage off sig. radius.
Wouldn't players just toggle shield regen on and off constantly to get the 12.5%* bonus? Solution: Shield regen can only be turned off when there is no rate of change of shields AND has a 1 min.* cooldown. Lore explanation: Turning regen. on causes enormous heat to be generated (thus, raises sig. levels), forcing the generators to enter a locked state to bleed off excess heat. What does everyone think about this? Would this be useful or just add complexity for no reason.
Fly safe everyone,
Vicky
P.S. I haven't worked out how much sig. radius should drop by since I'm not an expert in PVP. To you PVPers, what would be a suitable amount without breaking lock time/bomb damage %.
* = subject to change |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:38:12 -
[2] - Quote
Honestly if the game was fine and we could nitpick, why not try... but as it stands... SOOOOOOOOOO much work to do, i don't see the point to give dev's more work for something like this.
Good idea though, could be interesting :) |
Victoria Astor
Ordine Malleus
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 04:46:55 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks for the reply,
Ya, maybe I went out on a limb with idea. But, you never know...
Vicky |
Paul AtreidesMuad
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
114
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 05:59:12 -
[4] - Quote
But....why? |
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4351
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:04:25 -
[5] - Quote
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Maxiom Aideron
Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:07:34 -
[6] - Quote
I really like this idea, though I think if you power down your shield regen you should have a boost to cap recharge or capacitor amount.
I had something in the same vein as your idea a little while back when I was reading about the mode selection for the t3 destroyers. What if you could toggle between max thrust, max shield and nominal modes? You toggled your thrusters off in the max shield mode, whereby you would divert whatever power was being used to stabilize the warp core and keep the thrusters active but gain an enhanced shield buffer or cap regen. Essentially like bastion mode but deactivation of thrusters would leave you immobile and would require at least a minute or two to stabilize the warp core before you could activate the drive. Max thrust would divert power from your shields and give you a higher base speed but would decrease your agility and you wouldn't have to deal with the capacitor consumption of a prop mod, however; you could still use a prop mod in this mode but your maneuverability would be further hampered.
I don't think this would be too much work to add into the game, what with the new mode selections on the t3 destroyers, and it would only allow for more interesting game play choices. Additionally I don't foresee a need to rebalance all the things to be able to cope with the inclusion of either of these ideas. If it becomes a universal tactic that all pilots can use then they will do it and optimize their fleets to either include or defeat them.
Going along with the supposed advantage armor ships would have in this zone, if you scale the benefits based on the percent of raw hitpoints contained in shield then I think it should balance out? Not entirely sure but it might be something to consider. |
Catherine Laartii
Imperium Technologies Evictus.
486
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 06:35:08 -
[7] - Quote
I do like the concept of passive boosts to not running your shields. A sig reduction bonus and cap regen bonus seem like fine ideas as long as they're somewhat minor.
I would also like to see a further bonus for disengaging your shields entirely. This would also act as a stealth buff to amarr ships, which I think is sorely needed in the capacitor department. |
Ferni Ka'Nviiou
Republic University Minmatar Republic
8196
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 07:24:18 -
[8] - Quote
Just copying & pasting my reply from the redundant thread.
With passive tanks you have a much higher signature anyway.
Since shield boosters don't increase the base signature, passive tanks are already at a disadvantage when it comes to signature radius.
To what end would an active tanking pilot have passive on, if it offers benefits by not having activated?
You need a different attribute to affect in this case. I do like the concept off the idea, but I don't think it has enough cons.
If anything, signature should be added to the ship when passive is off.
And then maybe a boost to capacitor recharge/velocity as an advantage?
I'm no balancer, but you get the idea. However, another signature radius reduction (for me, as an active pilot) would make my ship very, very hard to hit. And there would be virtually no side-effects for that. |
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1257
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:11:25 -
[9] - Quote
It's an interesting idea actually (but without the regen bonus as it's not needed and creates balancing issues), opening up lots of uses and opportunities without being silly, overpowered or whatnot. I'll agree that there's lots of stuff to do before this would even be a thing but as ideas go I quite like it. |
Victoria Astor
Ordine Malleus
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 08:41:06 -
[10] - Quote
@Ferni Ka'Nviiou, you raise an interesting point about how passive tanks are at an innate disadvantage in terms of sig. radius. From a data analysis perspective, active reps. should actually create a larger sig. radius then passive reps. Since sensors in space are constantly comparing their received raw data to naturally occurring background radiation. Think of a pulsar vs. a white dwarf, the pulsar is much easier to detect due to their rotating extremely powerful beams of electromagnetism that they eject. While on the other hand, white dwarfs are almost invisible due their lower EM output.
@Maxiom, I completely agree on your idea of setting different priorities for a ships limited hardware and power source. However, as you adeptly put. This idea is already being put into practice with T3 destroyers and distributing this systems across all ships would make T3 destroyers loss their innate abilities.
Though the cap regen. bonus is a good idea and makes logical sense.
- Vicky |
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
844
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 23:38:20 -
[11] - Quote
Its total shield HP that is generally tied in with more sig res and lower cap recharge that is tied to shield HP/s
that said even if it did not lower my sig i would love to be able to do this on some of my passive fits to bait targets
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |