Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wenron
Rifterlings
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 14:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Is there merit to a module or rig to support passive armor regeneration?
My thoughts are that the module does not need to rival shield tanking modules for regeneration rates, but offer some base regeneration at the cost of available capacitor pool. So, if you fit the proposed module, depending on your ship type, your total capacitor pool drops; however your original capacitor regeneration rate stays the same. The module isn't meant to replace active armor tanking, but will allow some repairs between fights and could make a difference in longer fights. The idea can be expanded with supporting rigs or complementary modules to make a passive regeneration rate viable in lieu of active tanking, but I'm not asking for that right away.
I did a search on the forums and archives and did not see a similar proposal, but bitter vets may have already seen a similar proposal. What are your thoughts? |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 15:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
No thanks.
I like Armour and Shields being rather distinct in their details.
Your suggestion just brings them closer together. Look up the term: homogenisation.
It also, with the reduction in total cap amount, sucks donkey balls for ships that are using cap heavy modules (lasers, mwd, actual reppers). |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
302
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 15:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Wenron wrote:I did a search on the forums and archives and did not see a similar proposal, but bitter vets may have already seen a similar proposal. What are your thoughts?
*raises hand* I've seen it before. Usually it gets linked to the already oddly named regenerative plating and energized regenerative membranes. (In case you've forgotten, these act just like trimarks right now but see **** all use what with oversized plates almost always helping more.)
Not sure I'd support the idea, but it does have some potential. |
Wenron
Rifterlings
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 15:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
Fair enough. I suppose what I am really thinking about would be a rig, not a module, so you can max EHP, and not have to give up a slot for a repper to patch up after a fight if you're caught solo in unfriendly territory.
It may be similar to the wish that repper drones could target your own ship. |
SpaceSquirrels
256
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 15:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Been suggested before (numerous times) However they are looking into the different tanking so they might come up with something besides the different between active and non across the board. I for one welcome more options and variety. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
302
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 16:12:00 -
[6] - Quote
SpaceSquirrels wrote:I for one welcome more options and variety.
See, here's the thing. More options don't necessarily lead to more variety. Take the aforementioned regenerative platings: they represent an option. But do you ever see them? No. And unless they get changed (or other modules performing similar roles get changed) you won't. That's because they represent a poor choice given all the other options (ANPs and EANMs in this case).
Passive armor tanking might find a niche in roaming armor gangs that can't dock to rep, fit RR, or pack RR drones. But even under those narrow circumstances, it seems like one of the other options would be better -- or else passive armor tanking might just be too good, which would reduce variety in some other way. |
SpaceSquirrels
256
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 17:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
fair enough, but those I see as two separate issues. More options more variety v. poor implementation. Anything could have crappy implementation no? There are crappy modules or mechanics regardless. The fact that someone "Might" **** it up should not compromise the implementation of further ideas. |
Batelle
HOMELE55 FORECLOSURE.
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 22:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
I wouldn't mind all ships (excluding caps) regenerate 1% of their armor every 60 seconds in such a way that has no impact on fitting. Anything more than that I would be against. Such a change would also benefit shield ships as well if they dip into armor briefly. That said I don't consider it to be a needed change. |
Lili Lu
149
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 22:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
On the old forums I remember some folks suggesting that the "regenerative" armor modules have a regenrative effect in addition to the static hp addition. It would be some very slow rate of repair so an armor tanked ship would be more viable for a lone hunter out in 0.0. He could safe up in some quiet system (uncloaked), sit there for a while and have the armor repair.
The idea being that it would not be a tanking strategy, but would over a period of time repair say a plated pilgrim such that he could go out the next hour or night and hunt again without running to low sec or npc space to dock up and repair the armor.
edit- I suppose one could say, just fit a small armor repper. Either way you lose a slot. However the regenrative plating would provide the hp in addition to the repair so it would not a total waste of a slot. Also the rate of repair on the regenerative would be much slower so noone who is a shield fanatic could say it was breaking/imbalancing the tanking differences. |
Buzzmong
Aliastra Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2012.01.24 22:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
If you really want some sort of passive regen, then oddly, I'd say perhaps item based.
You can already use nanite paste in space to repair heat damage for modules, so it's not too much of a stretch lore wise to have some items which say, once applied, do a % regen over a set amount of time.
Usual caveats: it'll be a new addition to industry, requires some resource and logistics management (do you take all cap boosters to use in combat, or fewer cap boosters to take some of these to use out of combat?) and is another choice to make.
However, I'm still against it as I like armour and shields having different large pro's and cons. |
|
Wideen
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 08:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
I agree with Buzzmong, it's just plain boring to homogenize the systems to behave the same.
I think CCP already constructed a very well weighed system as it is.. |
Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
212
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 12:02:00 -
[12] - Quote
I would rather see nanobots or something repair armour over time than passive regen armour tanking. |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
841
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 12:19:00 -
[13] - Quote
You can active fit with armour & shield. You can buffer fit with armour & shield. You can passive regen fit with just shield.
Clearly, something is missing for armour. I don't think it should really be passive regen, however, as I love the differences between armour and shield tanking.
Something should be done with the ~226 modules which are currently useless in EVE. All of those energized and plating modules which only increase a single resist, and all of their meta0,1,2,3,4,basic,T2/faction/deadspace/officer variations. Does anyone even use them?
Something interesting should happen to them. Like, they could have a choice of two resists while you're undocked. Switchable by using nanite paste. Or, they sap your own shield & hull resists for higher armour resists. Or, they increase speed/agility. Or, they increase damage dealt if their resist type matches the ammo you're using. Or, it has a special ability to reduce incoming damage volleys to fixed amount, based on a fraction of your total armour.
Something INTERESTING! |
vorneus
Hub2
58
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 13:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:You can active fit with armour & shield. You can buffer fit with armour & shield. You can passive regen fit with just shield.
Clearly, something is missing for armour. I don't think it should really be passive regen, however, as I love the differences between armour and shield tanking.
Something should be done with the ~226 modules which are currently useless in EVE. All of those energized and plating modules which only increase a single resist, and all of their meta0,1,2,3,4,basic,T2/faction/deadspace/officer variations. Does anyone even use them?
Something interesting should happen to them. Like, they could have a choice of two resists while you're undocked. Switchable by using nanite paste. Or, they sap your own shield & hull resists for higher armour resists. Or, they increase speed/agility. Or, they increase damage dealt if their resist type matches the ammo you're using. Or, it has a special ability to reduce incoming damage volleys to fixed amount, based on a fraction of your total armour.
Something INTERESTING!
I just wanted to point out that passive single resist increasing modules are not useless. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why (cap requirements, cpu requirements, resist holes) both for PvE and PvP.
I'd also like to say that just because shields have passive regen, doesn't mean something is missing from armour. You can still fit a bigger buffer tank than you'll ever get with shields on an armour boat, one could argue that is compensation enough.
I do, however, agree that there are some modules (regenerative in particular) that see little to no use and could either do with removing or being given a niche/buff. What that niche/buff might be is another matter.
And lets not fire up the T2 armour plate discussion again :)
-Ed |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
841
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 13:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
vorneus wrote: I just wanted to point out that passive single resist increasing modules are not useless. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why (cap requirements, cpu requirements, resist holes) both for PvE and PvP.
Cap requirements should not be considered, as they are absolutely miniscule. In PVP, you want maximum performance out of your ship, and so would fit an active hardener to fill a resist hole. In PVE, your armour tank ships are always active, so the tiny cap usage of hardeners can be ignored. Hardeners also allow more efficient hp/s, so capless platings are actually not that friendly on the capacitor at all.
CPU requirements are never an issue on an armour tanked fit looking to fill a resist hole, whether for PVE or PVP. Have you ever seen such a fit? No, because it is worthless, and the fit is terrible! Armour frigates are the only ship type which may experience CPU difficulties when fitting a resist hole. Now consider that frigates only fill single-resist resist holes through rigs, and never hardeners or resist plating. A hardener gives 17% better resists for 20% greater CPU usage. Overheat that hardener, and you get 40% better resists for 20% greater CPU usage.
Now consider that the plating can't even be overheated when things get dangerous...
Think for a moment: Have you ever seen these modules used successfully? That's an indication that the module is bad. It may sound useful in theory, but in practice it is entirely worthless. A lot of things in EVE are like that. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2662
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 15:13:00 -
[16] - Quote
Wenron wrote:Is there merit to a module or rig to support passive armor regeneration?
My thoughts are that the module does not need to rival shield tanking modules for regeneration rates, but offer some base regeneration at the cost of available capacitor pool. So, if you fit the proposed module, depending on your ship type, your total capacitor pool drops; however your original capacitor regeneration rate stays the same. The module isn't meant to replace active armor tanking, but will allow some repairs between fights and could make a difference in longer fights. The idea can be expanded with supporting rigs or complementary modules to make a passive regeneration rate viable in lieu of active tanking, but I'm not asking for that right away.
I did a search on the forums and archives and did not see a similar proposal, but bitter vets may have already seen a similar proposal. What are your thoughts?
Because armor and shield tanking are meant to be qualitatively different
For instance, a 1600mm RT plate adds a LOT more hitpoints than a Large Shield Extender II. It's easy to make a very large buffer armor tank, but you can't make a passive regen armor tank.
Likewise, there is no shield equivalent to the Slave implants.
Basically if you want a regen tank, you go shield, if you want a massive buffer, you go armor. Trying to make both kinds do all kinds of tanking equally well means that you might as well not bother having two kinds of tanks. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2662
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 15:17:00 -
[17] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:vorneus wrote: I just wanted to point out that passive single resist increasing modules are not useless. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why (cap requirements, cpu requirements, resist holes) both for PvE and PvP.
Cap requirements should not be considered, as they are absolutely miniscule.
Uh, no. Active shield hardeners, especially T2 ones, extra especially the Invuln IIs suck up quite a bit of cap actually (3.2 cap/s from memory), and they have a 10-12 second cycle compared to the 20 second armor hardeners. Cap warfare is very effective against a shield tank based on active hardeners.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Kattshiro
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 16:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
I dunno there are already other drawbacks as it is to differentiate the 2 and add some sort of passive armor regen.
Speed, Sig, Fitting. Yes there are some dumb as hell armor mods.
I do like the idea of nanite paste for passive armor regen. (Or maybe something else as that would get rather expensive) |
Wenron
Rifterlings
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 16:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
Thanks for all the replies and general discussion.
My initial question was more than answered. I especially like the idea of applying nanite paste to get some repair / time. The idea of making armor and shields the same is not what I was going for. I just never really liked buffer tanking armor because, in addition to making you a brick, it does not scale well for solo or small gang roams away from friendly space (to me).
The point about the dramatic EHP increase when going from shield extenders to plates gives the idea for passive armor tanking perspective. Too many changes would need to be made to the current system to keep it from being OP. |
Sieges
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:34:00 -
[20] - Quote
Wenron wrote: It may be similar to the wish that repper drones could target your own ship.
I would love this.
|
|
Ivan Joukov
Soviet System
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:You can active fit with armour & shield. You can buffer fit with armour & shield. You can passive regen fit with just shield.
Clearly, something is missing for armour.
Shields are using meds, it's far more difficult to have a large buffer with shields, they have theircounterparts too.
Things are good as they are actually.
-áDavai!
|
Fredfredbug4
Kings of Kill EVE Animal Control
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 00:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
It makes some sense on paper. The two main armor tanking races (Gallente & Amarr) have the weapons that use the most cap. Logically it would make sense to compensate for that cap instability by creating a passive tank.
Though I'm not sure how it would work in practice. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |