EVE Search - Suggestion: Amend Hull Repairers and make hull tanking viable

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Suggestion: Amend Hull Repairers and make hull tanking viable

» 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)
Alyth Gallente Ma-Ven Industries Phobos Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.26 06:58:00 - [1] Edited by: Alyth on 26/04/2007 06:57:35 Edited by: Alyth on 26/04/2007 06:54:41 As it currently stands, running a hull tank is kind of a one shot weapon at the moment. Yes you can set a ship up to absorb some truly absurd amounts of incoming damage but you can't a: sustain that damage or b: repair it in any kind of a timely manner. My suggestion is as follows: Keep the CPU fitting requirements the same across the board. Increase grid requirements on medium reps by a factor of 2 (100 grid) and large reps by a factor of 5 (1250 grid) Either reduce the current cycle time by 20 - 30% (or in light of the next suggestions) keep the current cycle time. Increase the repair amount on small reps by a factor of 6 (150 - 180 hull repped tech 1 to tech 2 amounts), medium reps by 9 (450 - 540 tech 1 to tech 2) and large by 12 (1200 - 1440 again tech 1 to tech 2). Increase cap costs across the board by 2.5 for small reps (75 cap/cycle) 5 for medium reps (300 cap/cycle and finally 8 for large reps (960 cap cycle). Give us insaniacs our thrill ride tanks Suggestions and comments welcome as long as you keep it civil.
Lady Noriko	Posted - 2007.04.26 07:02:00 - [2] i doubt the hull ever was intended to be "tanked"
Tar Magen Amarr Arx Amarria	Posted - 2007.04.26 07:25:00 - [3] I dislike the notion of hull tanking just on principle. By the time your ship is down to hull, enemy fire is presumably ripping through the superstructure. By all rights, you should be losing systems as this happens even if the game doesn't simulate it. So in that regard, hull tanking doesn't make much sense.
Kldraina	Posted - 2007.04.26 09:21:00 - [4] As things stand, hull is the only thing that cannot be repaired/recharged quickly. I think it should stay that way. Otherwise, hull tanking would be just like all other forms of tanking, instead of the current "wtf?" method it is now. --- Most players have no idea what makes a game good.
Biotide Macabre Votum INVICTUS.	Posted - 2007.04.26 09:27:00 - [5] hell even if they dont put that in, how about reducing the cycle time? you ever tried to rep 7000 hull with 1 large hull rep? takes forever [url=http://killboard.eve-invictus.org?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=7315] [/url]
Gaven Blands	Posted - 2007.04.26 09:40:00 - [6] How about armor reppers acting to heal hull if your armor is currently 100.0% ? Wouldn't affect combat repping, and it would still mean somebody leaving a battlefield mid fight isn't coming back unnaturally quickly either. Just a handy way of avoiding the crazy repair wait of hull tanking. Not that I condone hull tanking. I can see it likely to be nerfworthy, but if it is actually pretty balanced in practice, then it really could do with some post battle repair love. Eve: Cheats prosper.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.04.26 09:53:00 - [7] Hull tanking is silly. As someone has already said, when enemy fire is ripping through your hull, in RL you would be losing systems, pressurisation, all over the show. Hull repairers rightly take a long time because you're rebuilding the base structure of your ship, not just pumping power to the shields or repairing holes in a coat of armour. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
MrRookie Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.04.26 09:58:00 - [8] I think hull tanking should be another form of tanking. As it stand armor and shield tanking is more efficient. The thread in here with the T2 bulkheads is interesting but obviously not good enough. Maybe of they made hull tanking some sort of passive tank with massive hitpoints, more than the T2 bulkhead/dmoi example, and with a flat resistance (DCU in mind). Also make the cycles faster on the hull reps, not for making them usefull in a pvp situation, more so it doesn't take two weeks reparing the hull tanked ship. The ship use the benefit of easy fittings so it can fitt bigger guns and doesn't have to use mids for the tank so it makes room for EW. Makes sense somehow Sig removed. Please email us at [email protected] if you would like to know why. -Conuion Meow May I have pink next time plz?
MrRookie Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:00:00 - [9] Originally by: Druadan Hull tanking is silly. As someone has already said, when enemy fire is ripping through your hull, in RL you would be losing systems, pressurisation, all over the show. Hull repairers rightly take a long time because you're rebuilding the base structure of your ship, not just pumping power to the shields or repairing holes in a coat of armour. The modules starts taking damage and evetually you'll need to dock to repair not only the ship but the modules aswell. Makes RP sense if you ask me. Sig removed. Please email us at [email protected] if you would like to know why. -Conuion Meow May I have pink next time plz?
Dominique Vasilkovsky Techmart Industries	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:00:00 - [10] Remote hull repairers as well as hull repairing drones would be very welcome. And yeah, fix the Large Hull repairers or at least seed the named ones. Screw t3. I'm waiting for t20. Just like t2, but it's free. - xArmagedunx
Pottsey Gallente Enheduanni Foundation	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:13:00 - [11] From a roleplay point of view I donÆt like the idea of hull tanking. Fixing hull should always be slower and worse then amour or shield fixing. Hulltanking is not just rebuilding the room that was blown up but also fixing all the computers and equipment in the room. Passive shield tanking guide click here
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:22:00 - [12] Originally by: Pottsey From a roleplay point of view I donÆt like the idea of hull tanking. Fixing hull should always be slower and worse then amour or shield fixing. Hulltanking is not just rebuilding the room that was blown up but also fixing all the computers and equipment in the room. Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? ---
Elve Sorrow Amarr Shinra	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:27:00 - [13] Originally by: n0thing Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? You mean like, oh i dunno, armor? EVE-O Forums Rules summary: If the thought of doing something makes me giggle for more then 15 seconds, I am to assume I'm not allowed to do it.
Gaven Blands	Posted - 2007.04.26 10:31:00 - [14] Originally by: Pottsey From a roleplay point of view I donÆt like the idea of hull tanking. Fixing hull should always be slower and worse then amour or shield fixing. Hulltanking is not just rebuilding the room that was blown up but also fixing all the computers and equipment in the room. I don't like armor tanking from an RP point of view when it comes to Plates. A plate should never appear in a wreck as it should have been destroyed long before the ship was, since it was a completely integral part of the armor. Getting out in structure and having undamaged plates at the repair shop makes absolutely no sense at all. Since it'll never be RP friendly, along with so many other things, there's no need to poo poo structure tanking on an RP basis. I think we should wait it out and see if it becomes the next broken uber cookie cut fit that wins or survives too many types of encounters. see nano domi. Eve: Cheats prosper.
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:03:00 - [15] Originally by: Elve Sorrow Originally by: n0thing Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? You mean like, oh i dunno, armor? lol Well, not exactly, armor is the outer shell of the ship, while that would be the interior protection. However, the idea to at least boost the hull-reppers alot would be great, even for just peacefull repping purpose. ---
VanNostrum The Legion. Requiem-Aeternam	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:11:00 - [16] Edited by: VanNostrum on 26/04/2007 11:08:11 Umm terrible idea Gallente ships have highest hull hp and decent armor hp, and they armor tank hull repairers are mid slot modules, increasing hull repairer rep amount would make gallente insane tanks it would make sense to increase hull rep amount only if they made hull repairers low slot modules edit: even so, it would be unbalanced cos it's possible to get 60% resist all with only 1 module (DCII) Join the army! Nao!
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:12:00 - [17] Originally by: Biotide reducing the cycle time .. ever tried to rep 7000 hull It's hours faster than hull repairing a dreadnought after rough beating.. And yet it seems balanced; the game gives you some motivation to avoid taking such damage. Slow remote hull repairers/drones might not be unbalanced idea. -Lasse missing his 'Peace' hull remote repairer..
San Surak	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:26:00 - [18] Originally by: Gaven Blands I don't like armor tanking from an RP point of view when it comes to Plates. A plate should never appear in a wreck as it should have been destroyed long before the ship was, since it was a completely integral part of the armor. Getting out in structure and having undamaged plates at the repair shop makes absolutely no sense at all. Yes, agreed. That's another thing that could be changed. Quote: Since it'll never be RP friendly, along with so many other things, there's no need to poo poo structure tanking on an RP basis. Thanks, no. You could use this to justify anything. There's a hole in the RP fabric, so why not introduce leprechauns and steam engines, for example?
Namingway Important Yet Underrated Video Game Characters	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:29:00 - [19] Originally by: Elve Sorrow Originally by: n0thing Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? You mean like, oh i dunno, armor? Away with you and your logic, these forums are no such place for it!
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:36:00 - [20] Repairing a heavily damaged hull is nearly the same as rebuilding the entire ship. Be glad it doesnt take as long to do as building the ship again from scratch which would be hours or even days for bigger ships :P
MrRookie Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:45:00 - [21] I'm going to have a good laugh if any of the titan owners manage to take any serious hull damage. Especially the avatar. repairing 300 k hull with 5 hull reps... Well any capitals for that sake is a good laugh Sig removed. Please email us at [email protected] if you would like to know why. -Conuion Meow May I have pink next time plz?
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.04.26 11:49:00 - [22] Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Elve Sorrow Originally by: n0thing Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? You mean like, oh i dunno, armor? Oops. My bad. You're right. Fixed your typo. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Alyth Gallente Ma-Ven Industries Phobos Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:00:00 - [23] Originally by: Pottsey From a roleplay point of view I donÆt like the idea of hull tanking. Fixing hull should always be slower and worse then amour or shield fixing. Hulltanking is not just rebuilding the room that was blown up but also fixing all the computers and equipment in the room. If Nanites can rebuild a whole section of armour plate possible on the order of several hundred metres long in the space of 12 seconds then, in my opinion, it's entirely feasible that nanites can rebuild a comparable section of internal structure in 24 seconds (as it currently stands). To be honest, if it can be given resistances it can be tanked. Even if not intended for combat, hull reps definitely need an overhaul because way back when (when they had the annoying snoring sound too!) a ship like a Dominix for example only had 4k hull HP. 5 reps fixing 100 hull HP each didnt take too long. Now it takes roughly twice as long and for capital ships it's just plain stupid. To the person who made the comment about Gallente ships being good tanks, are you suggesting that tanking should solely be the realm of Amarr and Caldari pilots? I think not. Gallente ships have a higher Hull HP than any other race. Why should we have to suffer with inferior Armour and Shield tanks when our true strength lies underneath those layers? Finally. For all it's advantages of making your ship a brick wall in terms of defence, it has the same effect on your mobility and it is DEFINITELY not a gank + tank setup, each damage mod you put on your ship can cost you upwards of 3000 hp, so like armour and shield tanks it has it's glaring drawbacks too.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:09:00 - [24] Originally by: Alyth Originally by: Pottsey From a roleplay point of view I donÆt like the idea of hull tanking. Fixing hull should always be slower and worse then amour or shield fixing. Hulltanking is not just rebuilding the room that was blown up but also fixing all the computers and equipment in the room. If Nanites can rebuild a whole section of armour plate possible on the order of several hundred metres long in the space of 12 seconds then, in my opinion, it's entirely feasible that nanites can rebuild a comparable section of internal structure in 24 seconds (as it currently stands). As has been said, though, repairing the armour is simply replacing and bonding/polarising destroyed areas of the plating. Rebuilding the structure of the ship would be a much more complex task, as the structure will carry power conduits, data transfer lines, etc. Just because you can apply resistance to something doesn't mean you should be able to repair it super-quick too. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:35:00 - [25] I think the resistances given by damage control units represent additonal hatches, internal force fields, automatic fire estinguishers etc that help containing hull breaches, spreading fires and somesuch, they are not some kind of extra armor applied to the structure.
Ozstar Naughty 40	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:40:00 - [26] more important things going on at CCP methinks
n0thing Northern Intelligence Artificial Intelligence.	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:44:00 - [27] Originally by: Druadan Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Elve Sorrow Originally by: n0thing Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? You mean like, oh i dunno, armor? Oops. My bad. You're right. I just love to say stuff without actually reading, so I edtited your above post. Well, now it looks better. Apparently, if you take a closer look, at both the EVE rp articles and at how ships are actually operating from both module descriptions and from same rp theory, you will get that ships armor presents an outer part of ship, thus damage done to it can be assembled using hardeners and armor repairers that are reinforcing the outer 'shield' if you wanna call it like this. Its like putting a sock on before wearing a shoe Now, proposal above and OP`s one, was to reinforce the interior ship part that would mean the hull repairers will assemble damage done to the inside ships structures. In any case, read before, write after ---
Alyth Gallente Ma-Ven Industries Phobos Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:46:00 - [28] Edited by: Alyth on 26/04/2007 12:49:16 Originally by: Druadan Originally by: Alyth Originally by: Pottsey From a roleplay point of view I donÆt like the idea of hull tanking. Fixing hull should always be slower and worse then amour or shield fixing. Hulltanking is not just rebuilding the room that was blown up but also fixing all the computers and equipment in the room. If Nanites can rebuild a whole section of armour plate possible on the order of several hundred metres long in the space of 12 seconds then, in my opinion, it's entirely feasible that nanites can rebuild a comparable section of internal structure in 24 seconds (as it currently stands). As has been said, though, repairing the armour is simply replacing and bonding/polarising destroyed areas of the plating. Rebuilding the structure of the ship would be a much more complex task, as the structure will carry power conduits, data transfer lines, etc. Just because you can apply resistance to something doesn't mean you should be able to repair it super-quick too. Meh, I'll put it this way. If Nanites can build a 1km long starship in about 3.5 hours (in the EVEverse), they can quite feasibly repair small sections of it comparitively quickly. To be honest, the roleplay reasons are nice fluff text and little more. Although I do enjoy roleplaying, I find that things such as armour repairers and the like are functional rather than something that, when you get down to the nitty gritty, you don't care about the how and the why just that they do what they are supposed to. My understanding of Armour, Hull and Shield is this. Shields are projected in a bubble around the ship. Armour is bonded to the primary hull of the ship and is constructed from different materials to the hull itself which gives it's inherent defencive qualities. Finally you have the hull which is usually composed of 2 layers, an inner and outer hull. The outer hull has a space between it and the inner hull so that when it's breached things aren't immediatley suckled into space (which also explains module damage below 25% hull...the outer hull is breached and damage transfers to the internals). The damage control, for example, increases the ability of this outer hull to resist damage whereas reinforced bulkheads strengthen this layer from the inside fortifying it against damage and making it harder to pierce and damage the secondary hull. That's the form of tanking I am talking about rather than having your drive room tank the damage for you ;) Compared to armour reps, hull reps take forever. Using my numbers above I wouldn't exactly call a 1040hp rep over 24 seconds with your highest resist at 60% an ubertank. In fact thats only 10hp/s more than a medium armour repairer. It's slow and doesn't really repair all that much when a structure tank is in effect. I'm sorry but if you can increase it's HP, give it resists, has repairers and one race has an advantage over all others (and minmatar can take it or leave it, as per usual) then it should be able to be tanked. Why else would those modules be in the game? I mean Damage Controls. Yes they aren't stacking nerfed and you can only have one but once you get over 70% resists the bonus it gives is negligible. When you are jammed, scrammed and nossed how the hell is that going to help you anyways? If you give it a dedicated repair system (that works) then it suddenly becomes a whole lot more useful.
Scaramunga Scaramai Amarr Serial Killers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2007.04.26 12:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Ozstar more important things going on at CCP methinks do they have cakes? i like cakes :\|
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.04.26 13:10:00 - [30] Edited by: Druadan on 26/04/2007 13:06:26 Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Druadan Originally by: n0thing Originally by: Elve Sorrow Originally by: n0thing Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics? You mean like, oh i dunno, armor? Oops. My bad. You're right. Fixed your typo. Well, now it looks better. Apparently, if you take a closer look, at both the EVE rp articles and at how ships are actually operating from both module descriptions and from same rp theory, you will get that ships armor presents an outer part of ship, thus damage done to it can be assembled using hardeners and armor repairers that are reinforcing the outer 'shield' if you wanna call it like this. Its like putting a sock on before wearing a shoe Now, proposal above and OP`s one, was to reinforce the interior ship part that would mean the hull repairers will assemble damage done to the inside ships structures. In any case, read before, write after I did read it, smart arse. You proposed a damage-soaking outer shell to protect the structure, which is exactly what armour is, hence the other guy proposing that... wait, you're ******* with me, right? You know your proposal was really armour. __________________________________________________ "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire

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.