Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skorn Blacksword
Maas Industries
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 13:17:49 -
[1] - Quote
Ablative armor: is usually a ceramic shield that takes kinetic force and reduces it by shattering and deflecting the kinetic forces away from the structure being protected.
Ganking: Killing a hauler in a way that you get the loot before concord can stop you. Usually considered naughty and generates carebear tears.
I propose a module called ablative armor. It would be very heavy with a flat mass multiplier. The larger the ship the bigger the penalty on mass and agility. Its benifits would be applied when the ship receives Incoming damage. So when the gank happens 100% of the damage is mitigated for 1 full server tick. Ablative armor can do this 3 times. or a max of 3 server ticks in a row. This allows concord a minimum 3 extra seconds to respond to a criminal ganking action.
Further explaining the 3 seconds:
When confronted with a solo ganker The module is most effective as you basically negate his first 3 attacks. Again this protects haulers and discourages gaking. allows for logi reaction and concord response.
VS ganking fleets your going to receive a huge alpha and large amount of followup damage every second after that. The module would be less effective vs this style gank and likely only delay your death by 3 full seconds. However this is 3 move seconds than you normally would have had, allowing the possibility for concord to show up in time. This module isn't intended to completely END ganking, but reduce it, or discourage it. If you give the victims a little bit more survival the gankers will have to put in more effort. Easy isk is Easy isk, make it a little more changeling for them.
Other uses: Would be costly to use vs PVE rats and likely pointless. However rats do spawn in low, null on gates and this module might be useful to bypass them with less risk.
Could be fitted on a rolling orca to force collapse holes. Not its intended purpose, but an obvious use.
Further details/description.
-Uses a Large or huge amount of Nanite paste to repair the ablative armor. Think safety has a price tag on it
-Restrictions Needed: med haulers, transports, (ie no frigs, dessies or cruisers ) (anti-gank, not pro-gank) interesting if people used them in large battleship fleets, As it would protect vs alpha strikes and give logi reaction time. This may or may not be popular due to the agility and mass hit. Certainly would not be popular on blops. That detail would need further consideration, or possibly just further restricting it to haulers and transports.
-Obviously restricted to 1 of this module type. - 1 size fits all, no need to make different sizes if the penalty is a flat mass multiplier.
Idea Variations: if 3 (1) seconds of full mitigation is over powered, a 100%, -60%, -40% stackable resistance buff ( or similar idea with different %'s) might be a possible consideration.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1967
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 13:28:05 -
[2] - Quote
So I shoot you 3 times with a noob ship, lose nothing and you trash your module....? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
3087
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 13:28:35 -
[3] - Quote
All this would do is give you 3 more seconds of staring at your ship being bumped before it gets destroyed.
It is easily circumvented and provides nothing to counter ganks.
If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
|
Skorn Blacksword
Maas Industries
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 14:03:04 -
[4] - Quote
Yes it can be circumvented with a ship scanner, or 1 guy separating his weapons and taking 3 spaced out shots. Regardless 3 seconds could save some haulers and I should add miners to the list... It also give 3 seconds for 1) align and warp, 2) Logistics to react or 3) a player to experience his (ooh ****! ) moment and then hit his repair mod.
As noted its more effective vs a solo ganker than a fleet of them. Equipping this module may require extra gankers to mitigate Concords heroic efforts. And most likely of course your going to have players not even equip it.
If you ask the people getting ganked if they would like 3 extra seconds, many of them would agree it would have made a difference. Still many others would give you their tears.
It offers some protection that may save a non-afk player its worth considering. I wasn't intending a magical mod to forever eliminate ganking. Pro or con it is part of the game and Eve would loose some of its luster without it. |
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
972
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 14:20:47 -
[5] - Quote
This proposed module appears fairly easy to circumvent. I can't help but wonder how many would use it considering the potential increase to journey times that the mass and agility penalty would bring to already slow and cumbersome hulls and the added window of vulnerability caused by the increased align time to the next gate.
Not supported
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
225
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 14:39:41 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:It would be very heavy with a flat mass multiplier. The larger the ship the bigger the penalty on mass and agility.
Isn't this a contradiction?
Flat penalty = a hard number, i.e. +100 HP. That means +100 to a frigate, and +100 to a Titan. "Flat."
Percentage based bonus/penalty = +10% HP... i.e. A frigate with 100 armor now gets 110 armor, and a Titan with 1,000,000 armor now gets 1,100,000 armor. Not "flat".
The UI update we deserve
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1585
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 14:48:13 -
[7] - Quote
Skorn Blacksword wrote:Ganking: Killing a hauler in a way that you get the loot before concord can stop you. Usually considered naughty and generates carebear tears. Ganking: 2) killing a hauler in a way intentionally coded into the game by CCP in order to provide risk to haulers in highsec. Also known as 'working as intended'.
If you want to make haulers safer, why don't you just buff their EHP? Why add another module, which benefits can be bypassed and whose fitting costs are so high as to likely never be used? A Deep Space Transport is already nearly ungankable with that overheat bonus, so I see no need for such a module.
-1 |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2194
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 15:12:08 -
[8] - Quote
So if you are good at refitting and the server is cooperating, you can have an invincible cap fleet as long as they keep within refit range of some carriers with stacks of the module in their hangar? Every 3 second, you can just refit for 3 more seconds of invulnerability.
I'm using cap fleet as an example because I'm pretty sure it involve more effort to bum a cap out of range than it does to bump any sub cap but it would still apply. |
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
118
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 15:32:34 -
[9] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:Skorn Blacksword wrote:Ganking: Killing a hauler in a way that you get the loot before concord can stop you. Usually considered naughty and generates carebear tears. Ganking: 2) killing a hauler in a way intentionally coded into the game by CCP in order to provide risk to haulers in highsec. Also known as 'working as intended'. If you want to make haulers safer, why don't you just buff their EHP? Why add another module, which benefits can be bypassed and whose fitting costs are so high as to likely never be used? A Deep Space Transport is already nearly ungankable with that overheat bonus, so I see no need for such a module. -1
Totally off subject, but I don't think that the Devs intend for new players to leave the game because they can't move any of their stuff anywhere without being ganked.
I am totally for any new mechanic or module that discourages "ganking," specifically ganking in high security space. If we (the older players) want this game to grow, thrive and continue on for another 10 years, we need to get past the "working as intended" Bull-Shoit surrounding ganking.
Ganking should not be a source of income for bored players looking for content. It should be a mechanic that is possible if one group is trying to disrupt another group for a specific purpose (FW, wars and the like). Moreover, we, as a community of players, should think about the overall health of the game, including the new player experience and choose to NOT grief the new player and then call him stupid for doing something that he had no idea was stupid in the first place.
/steps down from soap box
+1 from me, even if there are big issues with the specifics.
Cedric
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
461
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 15:42:56 -
[10] - Quote
Way too much opportunity for abuse.
The best gank deterrent is making the effort to gank you more than the gankers are willing or able to put in. Adding this module means they just need to bring one more catalyst, or one more alt with a velator, as has already been pointed out.
The Law is a point of View
|
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1585
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 15:45:55 -
[11] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote: Totally off subject, but I don't think that the Devs intend for new players to leave the game because they can't move any of their stuff anywhere without being ganked.
I am totally for any new mechanic or module that discourages "ganking," specifically ganking in high security space. If we (the older players) want this game to grow, thrive and continue on for another 10 years, we need to get past the "working as intended" Bull-Shoit surrounding ganking.
Ganking should not be a source of income for bored players looking for content. It should be a mechanic that is possible if one group is trying to disrupt another group for a specific purpose (FW, wars and the like). Moreover, we, as a community of players, should think about the overall health of the game, including the new player experience and choose to NOT grief the new player and then call him stupid for doing something that he had no idea was stupid in the first place.
It seems you are mistaken. Suicide ganking is very much an intended mechanic in highsec. The "Devs" have been quite concerned about it existing as a source of risk in highsec (2012 CSM minutes, pg 59, for one example but there are more).
Of course we should not insult new players (or any player for that matter) but criminals are intended to exist in Eve. Crimewatch mechanics have been specifically coded to allow it as nowhere is suppose to be safe in this game. New players should be educated to this fact and taught how to be safe. Highsec has never been safer, and it is possible to avoid almost all risk of suicide ganking if you just spend a modicum of effort.
CCP recognizes that there are very good reasons why a PvP sandbox game like Eve cannot have any safe areas. It would be best to spend your time educating new players to this reality rather than futilely petitioning CCP to change the core of their game. |
Husidh
New Evolution Express
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 15:50:08 -
[12] - Quote
There's an easy way not to get ganked. Put an hour of training on a trial account, put it in a slasher with triple 60% webs and a 10mn ab (with low slot fitting mods) and BAM! You warp in 2 seconds. Stops most ganks, I've flown 5b in a freighter like that and never had any problems. |
Skorn Blacksword
Maas Industries
22
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 16:19:56 -
[13] - Quote
Leto Aramaus wrote:Quote:It would be very heavy with a flat mass multiplier. The larger the ship the bigger the penalty on mass and agility. Isn't this a contradiction? Flat penalty = a hard number, i.e. +100 HP. That means +100 to a frigate, and +100 to a Titan. "Flat." Percentage based bonus/penalty = +10% HP... i.e. A frigate with 100 armor now gets 110 armor, and a Titan with 1,000,000 armor now gets 1,100,000 armor. Not "flat".
Ok critique me on my wording, but not the idea. I was thinking that the multiplier number would be a constant. I'll be more careful with my non mathematical knowledge in the future
Otherwise, I'm not seeing the positive response I expected.
I think 3 seconds extra time for concord is huge, anything more than that would seem broken to me. Not a big deal for med sized haulers, but it actually takes a bit of time to take down the larger ships and concord could take out several ships in that extra time. I'm basing my opinion on what I viewed during "Burn Amarr", and heard on the Goon Twitch feeds. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2194
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 16:37:38 -
[14] - Quote
Skorn Blacksword wrote:Leto Aramaus wrote:Quote:It would be very heavy with a flat mass multiplier. The larger the ship the bigger the penalty on mass and agility. Isn't this a contradiction? Flat penalty = a hard number, i.e. +100 HP. That means +100 to a frigate, and +100 to a Titan. "Flat." Percentage based bonus/penalty = +10% HP... i.e. A frigate with 100 armor now gets 110 armor, and a Titan with 1,000,000 armor now gets 1,100,000 armor. Not "flat". Ok critique me on my wording, but not the idea. I was thinking that the multiplier number would be a constant. I'll be more careful with my non mathematical knowledge in the future Otherwise, I'm not seeing the positive response I expected. I think 3 seconds extra time for concord is huge, anything more than that would seem broken to me. Not a big deal for med sized haulers, but it actually takes a bit of time to take down the larger ships and concord could take out several ships in that extra time. I'm basing my opinion on what I viewed during "Burn Amarr", and heard on the Goon Twitch feeds.
Why did you expect a positive response when you propose a module that can make your ship invulnerable for a large amount of time if you happen to be within refit range of a depot/carrier/any refit enabling ship? |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
2467
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 17:02:51 -
[15] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:So if you are good at refitting and the server is cooperating, you can have an invincible cap fleet as long as they keep within refit range of some carriers with stacks of the module in their hangar? Every 3 second, you can just refit for 3 more seconds of invulnerability.
I'm using cap fleet as an example because I'm pretty sure it involve more effort to bum a cap out of range than it does to bump any sub cap but it would still apply. /thread
Dr Cedric wrote:Totally off subject, but I don't think that the Devs intend for new players to leave the game because they can't move any of their stuff anywhere without being ganked. CCP Falcon has stated very plainly that the "solution" to the "problem" of suicide ganking is to "bring more guns". In other words...working as intended.
It's surprisingly easy to move stuff in hisec relatively safely once you learn how.
Granted, I don't think CCP intends for new players to leave, they probably intend for them to learn.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
A brief history of C&P Thunderdome
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
442
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 20:50:32 -
[16] - Quote
Skorn Blacksword wrote: So when the gank happens 100% of the damage is mitigated for 1 full server tick
Or you use it as a anti-Doomsday shield...
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3796
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 21:15:56 -
[17] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Skorn Blacksword wrote: So when the gank happens 100% of the damage is mitigated for 1 full server tick
Or you use it as a anti-Doomsday shield...
I came here to post that. Give me back my thoughts. >:[ |
Chihiro Chugakusei
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
62
|
Posted - 2015.09.10 23:58:36 -
[18] - Quote
or allow damage controls on freighters
Keep it up, +1
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
232
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 03:47:45 -
[19] - Quote
as an Industrialist and sometimes casual miner............*sigh* *shakes head*
Whats wrong with your people acting like sheep....theis type of thing would never work...take 1 cat with ungrouped guns...bam module broken.
Quit thinking in passive defense and start thinking about being proactive....sheesh I am deeply embarassed that my profession is gaged in the same class as the rest of you and starting to border on shame........get a clue and start playing EvE correctly.
Oh yeah.....No -1 |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
195
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 05:04:53 -
[20] - Quote
But armour plates ARE ablative armour.
In general ablative armour is an armour that is gradually spent on deflecting incoming fire. As opposed to "(penetrated and everyone dies)/(a small irrelevant dent on the plate)" approach of the regular armour.
Armour plates (and armour in EVE in general) fit the description to the t. It IS gradually spent on the incoming fire.
The things that are non-ablative would be, say, hardened armour (doesn't take damage if the attack power is below a certain threshold) and bubble shield (absorbs a single volley of any power and has to recharge for some time - alpha protection). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |