| 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 donĘt 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 donĘt 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 donĘt 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 donĘt 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 donĘt 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 donĘt 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 |
n0thing
Northern Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence.
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:19:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Druadan
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.
Heres my original post:
'Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics?'
Now, the room that was mentioned by Pottsey, was meant to be inside of a ship. Meaning, ship`s interior.
I proposed that from explanation point of view(EVE has all stuff explained pretty good at what does what and why), the idea to put somesort of reinforcement inside of a ship to those interior parts that are below armor can be possible and thats how reinforced bulkheads act now. However to make it even more doable, a hull repper needs a slight increase in rep amount and some mild tweaking.
However, from the balance point of view, the hull tank needs to penalize something, same as shield tank penalizes cap recharge or sig radius, armor tank penalizes speed or agility, and hull tank if it will ever be possible should penalize either both amount of armor and shield HP on hull tanked ship to prevent 'double hp buffer' from combined shield and armor hp, or make it penalize stuff like cargo hold decrease(makes sense since you need to mod inside part of the ship).
Can we stop editing posts now?
---
|
Drek Grapper
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:27:00 -
[32]
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.
Spot on. If you taking hull damage...you are going down. A hull repper just helps you to last a little longer nothing more.
|
Druadan
Gallente
Aristotle Enterprises
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:30:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Druadan on 26/04/2007 13:27:57
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Druadan
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Druadan
Originally by: n0thing
Originally by: Elve Sorrow
Originally by: n0thing
--snip--
--snip--
--snip--
--snip--
--snip--
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.
Heres my original post:
'Well, what if in theory again, the same room plated down with huge panels that soak all the damage without reaching the core electronics?'
Now, the room that was mentioned by Pottsey, was meant to be inside of a ship. Meaning, ship`s interior.
I proposed that from explanation point of view(EVE has all stuff explained pretty good at what does what and why), the idea to put somesort of reinforcement inside of a ship to those interior parts that are below armor can be possible and thats how reinforced bulkheads act now. However to make it even more doable, a hull repper needs a slight increase in rep amount and some mild tweaking.
However, from the balance point of view, the hull tank needs to penalize something, same as shield tank penalizes cap recharge or sig radius, armor tank penalizes speed or agility, and hull tank if it will ever be possible should penalize either both amount of armor and shield HP on hull tanked ship to prevent 'double hp buffer' from combined shield and armor hp, or make it penalize stuff like cargo hold decrease(makes sense since you need to mod inside part of the ship).
Agreed. If hull tanking is implemented, and every fibre of my soul hopes it isn't simply because it just makes so little sense to be able to tank (i.e. rebuff in line with damage recieved in combat, the way reppers do) the barebones of your ship, then you would need to use a good penalty. Cargo space makes sense since that's the drawback of bulkhead reinforcement at the moment.
Originally by: n0thing
Can we stop editing posts now?
Sure thing, honeybunch.
__________________________________________________
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire |
Tommy Vercetti
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:30:00 -
[34]
What is viable hull tanking going to achieve that the other two types aren't already? Somehow I think CCP have far more pressing issues than worrying about hull tank viability. Plus with the amount of work just to get it balanced I'd rather have lag free fights, reworked pos warefare, nos changes and god knows what else.
Originally by: Drake Heartbreaker
that've caught the attention of PA, who are no better than a group of thugs roaming around Afghanistan in technicals with AK-47s looking for a UN supply truck to rob.
[/q |
MrRookie
Caldari
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:44:00 -
[35]
Well atleast reinforced bulheads should be made to something usefull. As it is now they are compleetely pointless since there will always be a bether module to put in it's place. Give it a 50% increasment to hull ammount and a stacking penalty or something. That way it could be a usefull single modules to fitt along with a dcu.
Sig removed. Please email us at [email protected] if you would like to know why. -Conuion Meow
May I have pink next time plz? |
Alyth
Gallente
Ma-Ven Industries
Phobos Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:56:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Druadan
Exactly. All you can do to the structure of a ship is make it more resilient. Damage Controls are there to make you last longer, to stay in the fight as long as possible, by making the structure of your ship survive for twice as long. Not to stave off damage enough so that you can tank your aggressors on the bare bones of your ship. Don't just waive RP when it doesn't suit you but then be glad to use the example of module damage below 25% to show your theory about a dual-levelled hull. Quite simply, once your structure is is in severe disrepair, the enemy are causing damage to mods, as there really isn't much left of your ship and it's on fire, which is also damaging the modules. As for being jammed, scrammed, and NOS'd, nothing helps you in that situation apart from your support warping in to your aid, so that is irrelevant to a discussion on hull tanking.
So, exactly what is the point of structure then? It's only of value to capitals battleships or possibly battlecuisers with a DCU included in it's setup because, as you put, it if you are in structure you are going down and nothing barring support will save you. Even then you are more than likely to lose your ship anyway.
People are waving RP around like it's the be all and end all of module design Mr Druadan. Like I said, I don't care about the how and the why but if people seem so insistent on dismissing it because the RP isn't nice that I might as well add my two pence to the argument. Don't get me wrong I'm not OMG YOU DON'T AGREE YOU ARE WRONG, I enjoy the debate above all else so I am listening .
After having played with several structure tanked ships last night to get a feel for it though last night I feel there could be something valid there, giving another tactical option on ships that don't need to move much but end up in the thick of it. Ships like the Dominix and Raven sparing module slots that might be used for propulsion or cap injectors for more tackle gear, Ewar, sensor boosters and the like.
|
Caffeine Junkie
Caldari
Elite Storm Enterprises
Storm Armada
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 13:59:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Tar Magen
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.
Actually it does, i've seen situations where modules have been destroyed on your ship as you take damage to structure (however only when you are right down)
___________________
...and its "Armour" not "Armor" ... m'kay!
passive armour-tanking ftw! ;-) |
Druadan
Gallente
Aristotle Enterprises
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 14:12:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Druadan on 26/04/2007 14:09:50
Originally by: Alyth
Originally by: Druadan
Exactly. All you can do to the structure of a ship is make it more resilient. Damage Controls are there to make you last longer, to stay in the fight as long as possible, by making the structure of your ship survive for twice as long. Not to stave off damage enough so that you can tank your aggressors on the bare bones of your ship. Don't just waive RP when it doesn't suit you but then be glad to use the example of module damage below 25% to show your theory about a dual-levelled hull. Quite simply, once your structure is is in severe disrepair, the enemy are causing damage to mods, as there really isn't much left of your ship and it's on fire, which is also damaging the modules. As for being jammed, scrammed, and NOS'd, nothing helps you in that situation apart from your support warping in to your aid, so that is irrelevant to a discussion on hull tanking.
So, exactly what is the point of structure then? It's only of value to capitals battleships or possibly battlecuisers with a DCU included in it's setup because, as you put, it if you are in structure you are going down and nothing barring support will save you. Even then you are more than likely to lose your ship anyway.
People are waving RP around like it's the be all and end all of module design Mr Druadan. Like I said, I don't care about the how and the why but if people seem so insistent on dismissing it because the RP isn't nice that I might as well add my two pence to the argument. Don't get me wrong I'm not OMG YOU DON'T AGREE YOU ARE WRONG, I enjoy the debate above all else so I am listening .
After having played with several structure tanked ships last night to get a feel for it though last night I feel there could be something valid there, giving another tactical option on ships that don't need to move much but end up in the thick of it. Ships like the Dominix and Raven sparing module slots that might be used for propulsion or cap injectors for more tackle gear, Ewar, sensor boosters and the like.
The point of structure is to be the thing that everything else is ''strapped on'' to. Sorry to use your two most hated letters again, but in this respect it's really just an RP layer to the ship. It's there to simulate the physical bare bones of the ship, and the taking of damage allows such things as module damage to be realistically implemented. Additionally, and you'll be pleased we're departing from RP here, structure allows an armour tank to be pushed to breaking point, rather than having to warp out much earlier due to taking damage, whereas shield tankers would have the armour ''backup'' during which they can make last dash attempts to get out of there. The Damage Control maximises that survival time by applying the damage-type resistances to these bare bones of the ship.
__________________________________________________
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire |
Zeph Solaris
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 14:22:00 -
[39]
The 'hull tanking wouldn't work out in RL' thing needs to be dropped. Anything regarding Eve needs to be considered from a gameplay point of view. As hull tanking stands, it's meticulously slow. Proportionally, I think it needs a bit more tweaking, but no heavy changes. I think a new module needs to be added to cover hull concerns. One module, in a mid slot that repairs a fairly large amount of hull for its respective ship class size. Only one of them can be fitted at a time. That would aid the 0.0 people with hull damage and the mission runners who take a bit of a hit past their armor, yet keep hull tanking in the same position even though it's getting a boost. If someone is hull tanking, this module would still take forever to help them. They'd be better off remote reping the hull back to 100%
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 14:23:00 -
[40]
I'd actually prefer to see more the opposite; massive hull HP's but once you hit the hull, varying degrees of systems damage, turrets/launchers being blown off, up to the point where a ship can become little more than a floating wreck.
Oh and debris including corpses of unlucky crew members who happened to be in the wrong section of the ship at the time... 
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Zeph Solaris
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 15:48:00 -
[41]
By that reasoning, the turrets and engines should be able to be destroyed as soon as the shields are down. CCP has already stated that going after certain modules or certain modules going down under certain circumstances in a fight wont be happening because it would inbalance the game beyond reason. Remember that it's a game. I dont see the the shields, armor, and structure as aspects of a developedd universe, but rather levels of protection from enemy pew pew.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |