# [mechanism rework] shield and cap regen velocity

TLDR : the idea is to nerf shield and cap modules stacking. For this, I introduce a new ship attribute, which is modified linearly by the modules instead of exponentially, and replace the present multiplicative reduction in time of the modules with an equivalent linear increase in this new attribute. I provide formula to get the same effect based on the number of modules at which the effect is even, and the relative effect of one module that comes from that value.

I will only talk about shield recharge, cap recharge is the same

# Shield recharge formula

ATM the shield recharge follows the following formula :
regen (point/s) = max_capacity Ă— intensity Ă— c / regen_time

• max_capacity depends on the capacity of the ship(after skills) and increases linearly with the module installed and exponentially with the â€śextenderâ€ť rigs installed.
• intensity is a variable that is 1 when the % of shield is 25%, and decreases the further we are from that peak value
• c is a constant (around 2.5 for shield)
• regen_time is the time of regen, base from ship (after skills) and is decreased exponentially with the modules.

This means that the peak recharge (at 25% max shield) increases linearly with the shield HP modules, and exponentially with the shield regen modules.

# Shield recharge comparison

Typically, a purger T2 gives a -25% in shield recharge time, so multiplies the regen by 100/(100/75) = 4/3 : an increase in +33% per rig installed.
In the same way, a shield power relay T2 gives -25% bonus to shield recharge time, so increases the regen by +33% per module installed.
WRT mid slots, a shield recharger provides -15% recharge time, so +17.6% regen (those are very bad).
On the other hand, a drake with base 7.2k shield hp reaches 10.6 k hp with a LSE T2, which is a gain of +47% ; but then the next LSE makes it reach 14k, so a gain of +32%, and a third one

This means that after adding one LSE, itâ€™s better to use low and rig regen modules ( assuming regen only is the only important part).
Generally, that means that shield regen ships are bad with few modules, but are very good with enough modules. A passive shield drake reaches 200 HP/s with 3 LSE, 3 purger and 3 power relay, while still being cap stable. An active shield drake, with a large SB, Large cap battery, two shield boost amplifiers, solidifiers T1+T2, CCC T2, and two capacitor flux coils, can reach 181 HP/s but with much less fitting (need to fit compact HM), and can be neuted.

# Shield Recharge Velociy

I propose to add the Shield Recharge Velocity(SRV) attribute to the ship. The base value is 100 for evey ship. It is increased by a linear amount by modules, eg a module that should give +33% regen will give +33 points of SRV.

The â€śoppositeâ€ť attribute would be the Shield Recharge Inertia (SRI), which would also be 100 on each ship. This attribute makes sense for the cap part, because the shield flux coil has a negative effect on the capacitor that could lead ot a division by 0 if enough are installed.

The formula thus become :
regen (point/s) = max_capacity Ă— intensity Ă— c / regen_time Ă— SRV / SRI
The regen_time would not be impacted by the modules, only by skills and eg implants that directly affect this attribute.

This formula would make each regen module stack LINEARLY.

Of course, each module/fit should be modified in order to provide a correct amount of SRV.

# Modification of modules

This formula would mean that each effect would decrease in relative efficiency, as more are installed. There still need to convert the present bonus to shield regen time into SRV.

I propose a formula that balances the SRV of a module so that the effect is the same when a given number are installed, stronger before, weaker after.
with

• B the breakpoint number of modules that we want installed for same effect. (eg 3)
• X the current bonus to shield regen (eg -25 for the shield power relay)
• Y the amount of SRV that module provides

The equation is thus,
(100/(100+X))^B = (100+SRVĂ—B)/100
which becomes
Y = 100^(B+1) /B /(100+X)^B -100/B
here are the values for a few modules and B

module name effect B 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
shield power relay II, purger II -25 33.33333333 35.97338119 38.88888889 42.11203828 45.67901235
shield power relay I, purger I -20 25 26.5028324 28.125 29.8771243 31.77083333
cap recharger -15 17.64705882 18.40410111 19.20415225 20.04995372 20.94443314

with B = 3, a single purger T2 would go from +33% regen to +45%, but after 3 modules installed the effect would be lower than it is ATM.

# Rebalancing

I think, there is another constraint to ensure : the effect of a regen module must be stronger than the effect of a buffer module, because buffer modules provide both rep and â€¦ well, buffer.
I propose that the shield regen module be increased to put it more on line with rigs. as it is now, it provides a bit more regen than half a purger . I think setting its gain to -19% wouldmake more sense.

Iâ€™m not sure theres is a problem here that needs solving.

What is the sig increase of the drake when using 3 LSEâ€™s and 3 purgers vs the active fit you propose?

And all for about 10% extra dps tank.

1 Like

The drake can still add a shield flux coil, or a power diag, as well as shield recharger - and still have room for HM.
The best the active drake can do after that, is a DC. And it still does not have the fit for HM.

I tried to compare equivalent fits, in terms of module used, just to show that in order to have the same effect, with the same number of modules, the active fit needs to sacrifice much more.
If they use the same fit, the drake needs to use a MSB and canâ€™t reach the values of the passive fit.

I can tell you put a lot of effort into this but could you dumb it down for us? Why would this be an important change?

nope, canâ€™t do.
Take your time, read it - or not itâ€™s up to you.

Iâ€™m gonna go ahead and say no.

1 Like

No problem stated, therefore make work.

-1

i think there is an easier solution to the problem of â€śinstant rechargeâ€ť of modules that increase capacity of shield (extenders) and capacitor (batteries) - include flat recharge time malus in the module statistics.

That way there wont be an absurd situation when, for example a shield/capacitor of 500 is fully recharged in 5 minutes; you add capacity up to 5000 and it still recharges it in same 5 minutes. Just where does the extra power comes from in the ship to fuel this insanity?

From the module you installed, obviously.

Actually itâ€™s not extra power, itâ€™s extra recharge. Itâ€™s totally not the same thing. A capacitor IRL recharges faster if you add more tension. In Eve world, you have infinite energy. However dissipation of infinite energy in space is very difficult, therefore ships have access to that energy but canâ€™t use it properly, dedicated modules enhance that usage of energy.

Just because you donâ€™t understand it, does not mean it makes no sense.

So that the gain will be negative for smaller ships ?

negative in form of longer recharge to full? I fully support that notion if that would limit the potency of â€śone-module-to-fit-them-allâ€ť (aka Large cap battery or MSE/LSE on undersized hulls).

Note: but only when shield/cap modules tiericide finally happensâ€¦ that has been promised to happen in the summer of '19.

negative in the form of a negative gain. That is, actually decrease the recharge rate.

recharge rate is a derivative value of capacity/recharge time. I dont see a problem in recharge rate decreasing as a result of capacity greatly improving. if you need recharge rate there are specialized and currently underused modules for that.

Because itâ€™s opposite of the model in game ?
Because it would make those modules completely useless ?

CCP has already stated they are working on changing cap and shield regen modulees soâ€¦

1 Like

no, velocity.
Shield speed would mean the derivative of the amount (= the regen).
Shield regen speed would be the derivative second of that amount (that is, the acceleration).
Naming â€śspeedâ€ť for a factor applied on the speed is nonsense, especially since the gain is not direct.

This is especially obvious in your link : â€ś1-D Kinematics - Lesson 1 - Describing Motion with Wordsâ€ť . We are not talking about motion.

Ha, youâ€™re right.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.