EVE Search - Absolutely best module series there could exist, ever

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Absolutely best module series there could exist, ever

» 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)
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.11.16 19:52:00 - [1] Armor-nanobot Power Relay (different variants) Low slot PG/CPU usage : to be determined -10% to -30% capacitor recharge rate *0.3% to 1% armor repaired per second* (up for discution) ___ The be-all, end-all, mother-of-passive-armor-tanking module. And quite possibly the "solution" to the Amarr problem... by allowing them to run an armor tank indefinetely and practically "rehashing" cap booster charges as ammo for lasers (more or less). Flame away ! _____ -sig- This is my only char. These are my skills Always question everything, including yourself
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.11.16 20:30:00 - [2] I need to go change my pants now Akita, thank you. --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!
Darknar	Posted - 2006.11.16 20:38:00 - [3] yeah, would ne nice to have a passive armour rep rate, whitch you can increase. even better, create an armour tanking medium slot
Kunming Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.16 21:22:00 - [4] Whats the point of passive tanking if you have to fit a rep/passive armor recovery module.. you can just fit a big plate and a small rep. The thing is after KALI, the imbalance between armor and shield tanking will be even stronger.. Shield recharges on its own so all slots may be used up for extenders and hardners, while armor needs at least 1 slot to do the recharging and its plates are less effective than shield extenders. No wonder why armor tankers want a passive tanking option, especially since passive tanking is going to be overpowered in KALI. Well I'm training up my shield skills atm, just in case Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
Commoner Caldari Emergent Chaos The Core Collective	Posted - 2006.11.16 21:27:00 - [5] Edited by: Commoner on 16/11/2006 21:29:35 Edited by: Commoner on 16/11/2006 21:28:31 Originally by: Akita T Armor-nanobot Power Relay (different variants) Low slot PG/CPU usage : to be determined -10% to -30% capacitor recharge rate *0.3% to 1% armor repaired per second* (up for discution) ___ The be-all, end-all, mother-of-passive-armor-tanking module. And quite possibly the "solution" to the Amarr problem... by allowing them to run an armor tank indefinetely and practically "rehashing" cap booster charges as ammo for lasers (more or less). Flame away ! hmmm lets see. 3 of these is roughly 2.5% armor repaired per second. A vanilla BS has more than 10k armor with skills and Kali. 1 % of 10k = 100 so 2.5% = 250. With 3 eanm and 3 of these you would have 250hp per sec (at all lvls or armor). I think it would be overpowered tbh. imagine an abaddon with these on and autocannons in highs, pretty much an unbeatable tank. Not to mention that you could fit dual webber and scrambler (gonna be sustainable for quite some time with BS cap)
Pottsey Gallente Acme Shipping Inc	Posted - 2006.11.16 21:31:00 - [6] What if you made it like a DC so you can only fit 1? Passive shield tanking guide click here
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.11.16 22:02:00 - [7] You could even tweak the penalities to be MUCH harsher, like say, -50% max capacitor (instead of 30% penality to cap recharge speed). You can make it "only one per ship" like the DC and give it 0.1% per second (1000 sec "recharge") Heck, you can even put it under "damage controls" if you want :) You can do pretty much anything you want with the numbers, I guess. The only thing that's REALLY important is the bonus "X% of max armor repaired per second" How much X is, and at what cost it comes, that's of secondary importance. _____ -sig- This is my only char. These are my skills Always question everything, including yourself
Old Geeza The Retirement Home	Posted - 2006.11.16 22:05:00 - [8] I would rather all ships had a tiny amount of natural armour and hull regen that could never be increased. _______________________________________ Sign the petition against jump queues!
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.16 22:25:00 - [9] great idea but not one fit all, have it act like lets say AB or MWD each size of ship needs it's own class, it slows % rate but about the same will be recovered, the key is getting skills to boost that % so it would match passive shielding,once you get a amarr with 50hp/s with it's armor, a new kind of game would be happening. It won't lean heavy onto shield tanking. But it must have units like shield tanking to boost it only to be fair, just one unti to do what so many units have to do for shield. Perfect idea tho.1% can work on frigs maybe, but just one super unit alone would be too uber.
Kai Lae Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.11.16 22:27:00 - [10] Originally by: Akita T Armor-nanobot Power Relay (different variants) Low slot PG/CPU usage : to be determined -10% to -30% capacitor recharge rate *0.3% to 1% armor repaired per second* (up for discution) ___ The be-all, end-all, mother-of-passive-armor-tanking module. And quite possibly the "solution" to the Amarr problem... by allowing them to run an armor tank indefinetely and practically "rehashing" cap booster charges as ammo for lasers (more or less). Flame away ! Better yet, change the energized regenerative module to something close to this idea. Currently it's basically worthless unless fitted on a capital ship, which I'm pretty sure isn't the intent (in any way you look at it). Raptor and Ares Fix
Dammar Ephorate	Posted - 2006.11.16 22:54:00 - [11] Edited by: Dammar on 16/11/2006 22:54:18 ..or it could be made into a Rig?!
Malthros Zenobia Caldari Independent Navy Reserve	Posted - 2006.11.16 22:59:00 - [12] Originally by: Akita T Armor-nanobot Power Relay (different variants) Low slot PG/CPU usage : to be determined -10% to -30% capacitor recharge rate *0.3% to 1% armor repaired per second* (up for discution) ___ The be-all, end-all, mother-of-passive-armor-tanking module. And quite possibly the "solution" to the Amarr problem... by allowing them to run an armor tank indefinetely and practically "rehashing" cap booster charges as ammo for lasers (more or less). Flame away ! If it repairs 1% armor per second you could have an Avatar, in Kali, passively regen between 7500-9000 armor per second. You'd also have 100-200 armor/sec regen on a battleship with just one of these mods. Sure, this mod would horribly overpower the Amarr, but they'd still whine. Originally by: kieron The Carrier was never intended to be a solo OMGWTF mission-farming PWNmobile.
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.17 01:43:00 - [13] Edited by: Vincent Almasy on 17/11/2006 01:44:37 I think it would be easier to Code if you set it by ship class as in this: Nano Mech. Repair time Frig = 3/4500 = 375sec Battle/Cruiser = 3/41000 = 750sec Battleship = 3/4*2000 = 1500sec This makes it easier to augment it such as adding in a plate to boost repair per sec like a shield exstender for a shiled tanker. To make it sait and a simular relay for this but not low slot but mid slot, a mirrored shield tanker's slots. Amarr would be on top, gallente and minmatar would be in the middle again but gallente lean armor. I also say shift the 7.5% repair boost they have to pain armor and shield growth be it nano/armor repair or shieldregin/active shield. This would make everyone able to passive tank, a little shifting but much the same. This way you choise to active or passive tank. But option, should the nano be a rig? Please be honest about my idea which is just a upgraded form of the original. -ps- The 25% time removal is to give a fair balance on using a low or a rig slot for this.
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.17 02:31:00 - [14] If you want passive recharging tank, use shields. The last thing EvE needs is for armor and shield tanking to converge into essentially the same thing.
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.17 02:47:00 - [15] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 If you want passive recharging tank, use shields. The last thing EvE needs is for armor and shield tanking to converge into essentially the same thing. .... Why?
king jks	Posted - 2006.11.17 03:51:00 - [16] I agree, shield and armor tanking are 2 separate and distinct things, and need to stay that way, its the same case with the turrets vs missles whiners. Shield tanking has its pro's and cons, and armor tanking has its pro's and cons, specifically: Shield tanking is a LOT harder to sustain, generally boosts for less, and is harder to get resists up, except on T2 ships. Pros are that the HP is boosted at the beginning of the cycle, boosted more often, and you have the passive regen on top of what you are boosting. Armor tanking has the upside of using low slots, so mids are used for pvp type modules, you can fit better cap regen mods, more sustainable, and armor is generally better to harden, also most armor tanking ships have more slots for tanking. Cons are that they have a long activation time, boost at the end of the cycle, and use a lot of cap. Now at this point, and certainly after Kali, shield tanking will become more and more superior to armor tanking, because of the HP boost, passive tanking is possible on just about every ship. Thus, the problem is not to add a passive regen to armor, but to boost active tanking in general. At this point, to bring armor tanking more in-line with shield tanking you need a dual rep setup, not only do armor reps take MUCH more fittings than XL boosters, but they are also very hard, if not impossible to sustain without a cap booster. This is all fine and dandy, but what needs to happen is the reps need to be boosted to bring them more in line with the XL+boost amp combo, 2 slots for 2 slots. Also, I wouldn't mind a slight drop in the fitting reqs of repairers, but thats a side note :). Another thing is that the amount of HP that armor tankers must have must be boosted to slightly higher of that which a shield tanker would have, because of the longer rep cycles, you need the HP as a buffer to take the damage until the rep can bring it back, since passive tanking is instantaneous repairing of shields. Bottom line: boost armor reps, and active tanking in general to cope with the HP boost. Cap reduction on active tanking modules? Pretty open on that one, but with the emphasis on survivability now, everyone will be fitting NOS, and dual rep setups will nuke your cap, XL boosters will do that too.
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.17 04:14:00 - [17] my issue is shield tankers have a option, a option to actively tank or passivly tank. armor tankers have no such option and both armor tanking races, gallente and amarr use cap heavily with their weapons. [Side Note] Max Skills a MAR-II reps only a rounded up 36rp/s while a normal passive cruiser shield tank tanks from 41shield/s to 50shield/s or more with no cap cost at all. I don't call this fair at all. Yes it takes more units then the one MAR-II but that is set on forever.
Tricit Caldari Ganja Unlimited Serenity Fallen	Posted - 2006.11.17 04:32:00 - [18] Edited by: Tricit on 17/11/2006 04:33:29 How about this: Armor Shield Hardener Relay 1: Converts shield protective properties to harden the Armor. Works by placing multiple deflective layers along the armor with the shields to improve armor damage take count and the shield resistances harden the armor. Can only use one per ship. Low Slot PG-200 (Tech II: 250) CPU-42 (Tech II: 50) -0% EM shield resistance -60% Explosive shield resistance -40% Kinetic Shield Resistance -20% Thermal Shield Resistance +0% EM armor resistance (Tech II: 5%) +60% Explosive armor resistance (Tech II: 62%) +40% Kinetic armor resistance (Tech II: 43%) +20% Thermal armor resistance (Tech II: (24%) Shield: -50% Shields Armor: +37.5% Armor (Tech II: 50%) --- Armor Amplifier 1: Allocates power from the shields to the Repairer Nanobots for quicker and more efficient repairing Low Slot PG-1 (Tech II: 1) CPU-35 (Tech II: 42) Shield Boost Time: +100% Armor Repair Time: -20% Shield Boost: -50% Armor Repair: +30% (Tech II 37.5%) --- Armor Nano Power relay: Allocates power used to recharge shields to nanobots used to passively repair armor. Shield Recharge Time: +33.33% Armor Repair Bonus: .33% at a peak of .825% @ 29.99% Armor ---
Asmodeos Gallente United Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.17 12:09:00 - [19] Quote: 6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance Posted - 2006.11.17 02:31:00 - [14] - Quote If you want passive recharging tank, use shields. The last thing EvE needs is for armor and shield tanking to converge into essentially the same thing. I agree the systems should be seperated, but now armour tanking is still weaker in kali it gets even more weaker, since they are planning to nerf Eanm... so some recompensation would be nice somewhere along the line for armour tanking. greetz
Myrk Reinhart	Posted - 2006.11.17 12:33:00 - [20] I like this idea a lot Some kind of passive armor repairing should be possible to implement. on a sidenote: Fighters should be able to repair their structure and armor damage on their own. Not at a fast rate,but still. Maybe even let the technicians in the carrier fix them up when they are docked? Get a timer on how long until fully repared?
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.11.17 13:11:00 - [21] Originally by: 6Bagheera9 If you want passive recharging tank, use shields. The last thing EvE needs is for armor and shield tanking to converge into essentially the same thing. Umm... because shield tanking is for shield tankers and armor tanking for armor tankers and... oh, wait, that about DOES cover all your argument so far, right ? Geez. Shield tanking and armor tanking WILL always remain separate even if you make them almost completely alike... if not for anything else, then for the fact that, err... they ARE separate ? And because each ship is better suited to some style of tanking based on bonuses and slot configuration ? Your would-be-angry "if you want passive use shield" statement is kind of confusing. I don't know, it's like you would be saying "there should be no active shield tanking, only passive shield tanking"... Or is it like you're saying "there should be no passive shield tanking" ? No, that can't be it. Or what is it you are saying ? That for some reason only shields deserve to be both active and passive tankable ? WHY ? You utterly fail to explain why that should be in the first place. And on the other part, you have pretty much every armor tanker that would just cream his pants for some form of armor passive tanking. Roleplay-wise, you already have items and item descriptions... just look at most of the (energised) nano plates and tell me you wouldn't EXPECT them to give you some kind of "passive" armor repair. If you can use capacitor to "regenerate" armor (in other words, rearange the existing or rebuild the destroyed nanobots from whatever material is left there), then you could argue you could just as easily permanently divert some of your capacitor into "generic" armor nanobot maintenance. Ideally, "passive armor tanking" would be akin to passive shield tanking... as in, is much more "resistant" to capacitor shortages, but "repairs" less than the active version. Now, apparently my initial concept of just "X% repair for some capacitor (max or recharge) penality" was somewhat lacking in depth and failed to consider ship-size-balance and various stacking issues, but that's where the "forum swarm" comes in, to point out the error and correct it. Or at least so I was hoping. So here's the new challenge: devise a passive armor repair module that repairs roughly half of what a "good" active tank would on that specific ship (so about one half to one MAR's worth for cruiser class and one half up to one LAR's worth for battleship class, depending one one/two slots used). IDEAS ? Well, you could have my initial proposal, but make it be "1 armor repaired per second" with a "-25% to max capacitor" penality AND you can only have one "active". Wait, active ? And only ONE armor point repaired ? Yes, active. But with a cycle time of, I don't know, 15 minutes or so. Just so it works like a DC. And no, I'm not insane :) Now comes the kicker. You have a SECONDARY module that works "together" with the "passive armor repairer". This secondary module gives me the willies quite frankly, but hey, that's life. The effect ? It BOOSTS the effectiveness of the first module (that one that repairs 1 armor per second) by a certain amount based on maxarmor and/or ship mass, but for a cost in cap recharge rate (on top of the first's maxcap penality). For instance, say effectiveness boost = sqrt(maxarmor) * 10 [%] Or, in other words, a 100-hp ship recovers (with one of first and one of second module) 1 * 200% = 2 armor/second ...while a 10000-hp ship recovers 1 * 1100% = 11 armor/second with one of the secondary modules, or 21 armor/second with two, and so on. Well, maybe SQRT is too harsh, probably a boost of maxarmor^0.75 * 15[%] would be more appropriate. Anyway, you can play with the NUMBER/FORMULA on the modules as you like... first only repairing significant amounts on frigates, anything beyond needs also one "booster" (so you lock at least two slots in), and so on... _____ -sig- This is my only char. These are my skills Always question everything, including yourself
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.11.17 13:30:00 - [22] Originally by: king jks Shield tanking is a LOT harder to sustain, generally boosts for less, and is harder to get resists up, except on T2 ships. Pros are that the HP is boosted at the beginning of the cycle, boosted more often, and you have the passive regen on top of what you are boosting. Armor tanking has the upside of using low slots, so mids are used for pvp type modules, you can fit better cap regen mods, more sustainable, and armor is generally better to harden, also most armor tanking ships have more slots for tanking. Cons are that they have a long activation time, boost at the end of the cycle, and use a lot of cap. Now at this point, and certainly after Kali, shield tanking will become more and more superior to armor tanking, because of the HP boost, passive tanking is possible on just about every ship. Thus, the problem is not to add a passive regen to armor, but to boost active tanking in general. Unless you use pirate gear (which, let's face it, is not the norm), shieldboosting and armortanking are comparable in most aspects with eachother in "overall effectiveness" if you have decent skills. At lower levels, you do have the cap-efficiency issue, but let's look at the higher sized modules. XL booster 1 is 80 shield/sec at 1 shield/cap (no skills no nothing), XL booster 2 is 120 shield/sec at 1.5 shield/cap. LAR is 40 armor/sec at 1.5 armor/cap, LAR 2 is 53.33 armor/sec at 2 armor/cap TWO LARs be 80/sec and 106.66/sec respectively, at 1.5 and 2 per cap. XL booster with T1 amp would be 104/sec at 1.3 per cap, T2 booster would be 156/sec with 1.95 per cap. Two LARs with maxed out skill would be 106.66/sec at 1.5/cap, or 142.22/sec at 2/cap. XL boosters with maxed skills would still be 104/sec, but with 1.44/cap and 156/sec with 2.16/cap respectively. Hey, wow, see, XL T2 booster plus T1 amplifier and good skills not only is "better" in repair/second, but also in capacitor effectiveness... nice. Oh, and I forget, we have T2 amps now. With T2 amps and maxed out shield comp, you get 108.8/sec at 1.51/cap with T1 XL booster, and 163.2/sec with 2.26 shield/cap. Aha, so I see, for large ships... "apparently" shield tanking boosts less and is harder to sustain ? Right. Myeah, where do I sign the "no clue" coupon ? _____ -sig- This is my only char. These are my skills Always question everything, including yourself
Luric Vizjier The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.17 14:00:00 - [23] I like the idea of mods that allow you to divert power from one system to another. I think with extended combat, CCP may actually consider looking at stuff like this, and not necessarily as passive mods either. I forsee active mods that allow you to divert all ship velocity for a 40% boost to shields, armor, or guns for a limited time. Although, I suppose boosters are "kinda" like this, but I would much rather be in control of what I lose in order to boost a stat. -----------------------------------------------
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.17 14:09:00 - [24] the reason it is said passive tanking will be better then active tanking befrom how much longer the fights will be that the capacitor will typically not able to keep up at the same pace while you can fit a ship to passive tank and have better shield regineration then a active tank in some cases
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2006.11.17 17:04:00 - [25] Originally by: Vincent Almasy the reason it is said passive tanking will be better then active tanking befrom how much longer the fights will be that the capacitor will typically not able to keep up at the same pace while you can fit a ship to passive tank and have better shield regineration then a active tank in some cases So, you basically agree some form of passive armor tanking would be welcome ? :) _____ -sig- This is my only char. These are my skills Always question everything, including yourself
6Bagheera9 Shadows of the Dead Xelas Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.17 18:21:00 - [26] I'll tell you why shield and armor tanking should never be allowed to converge into essentially the same thing, because it would be boring! The whole tanking aspect of the game would turn into a moronic number crunching excercise with zero tectics. Currently we have a diverse tanking system which makes the game much more interesting Armor: -Generally more cap efficent. -EANMs -Frees up space for mid-slot mods. Shield: -Faster -Passive Shield Regen -Frees up space for low-slot mods.
Queen Hades	Posted - 2006.11.17 19:09:00 - [27] No, please not. Armor tanking and shield tanking should stay different things, this is one of the things that make this game so interesting.
Bazman Caldari Shinra Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.17 19:16:00 - [28] They should change regenerative membranes to regenerate armour at about half the rate of a small armour rep, with severe fitting requirements (like an uber amount of CPU to fit) ----- OMG READ TUXFORD!!!1
Vincent Almasy Gallente The Underground	Posted - 2006.11.17 20:44:00 - [29] If this works out, tell me why passive armor tanking shouldn't rival and/or match passive shield tanking. Tell me why.
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Pirates of Destruction Union Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2006.11.17 21:33:00 - [30] Edited by: Bardi MecAuldnis on 17/11/2006 21:35:13 I take back my earlier post, this idea should not go into effect. Why? It's simply because Shielders should be able to defend themselves and destroy their enemies without being cap dependent and using their lows for damage mods while Armor users should have to use their slightly better cap to defend themselves to a lesser degree while firing their limited damage type, highly cap dependent weapons all while using their midslots to run cap dependent scramblers, webs, tracking comps, and propulsion units. Duh. Couldn't help it, I had a pyromaniac episode. --- Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!

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.