Na the extenders are ok.
Im actually considering another idea for relays, which is to increase regeneration more, but reduce resist by 2-3% per module.
this would make the dips on the ship stacking them harder, but the regen higher.
I had also considered “bleeding” reducings on the ship (ie if you stack them you “bleed” some damage into the armor.
I used a simple, fictional example with made up numbers specifically because it was easy to work with. Which part did I get wrong? 400HP/100s = 4HP/s, 100s reduced by 20% is 80s, and 400HP/80s = 5HP/s. Just a single module, no stacking penalties.
Also, ship stats like shield HP and shield recharge time aren’t impacted by stacking penalties like resists are. You can stack as many shield flux coils on a ship as you want (not that you’d want to) and each one would be just as effective as the last. (Mind you, you’d see a smaller absolute reduction in shield recharge time with each module because you’re taking a fixed percentage of an ever decreasing number, but that’s just the nature of math, not the EvE stacking penalties.)
If you don’t believe me, look at the module descriptions. Modules that have stacking penalties mention it in their description, and you won’t see it shield rechargers, shield power relays, or shield flux coils. (Or in purger or extender rigs for that matter.)
Again, you seem to be assuming stacking penalties where none exist. And you’re also taking my example from percentage gain from a single module on a fictional ship and applying it to a real example with multiple modules, which isn’t the best comparison.
If your talking about a specific module increase its huge, but when you look at it this way its not accurate for the outcome of the effect.
All passive builds require multiple extenders, relay/flux coils, and potentially rechargers. thus you will never get “30%” out of that module after you go to 2nd and 3rd as so on (as stacking modules of the same type in eve have reduced operational rates).
The penalty rates are
I just realized something, give me a minute to look into this. I may offound a way to break current passive tanking
Edit did not work, i had cosidered 2-3 of each type to see if it would provide better results due to reduced penalty rates, that dident work.
It seems shield flux are utterly trash (largely due to -10% HP).
As I said before, attributes like shield HP and shield recharge time do not suffer from those penalties. In terms of passive regen shield tanking, they only apply to shield resists. Try it out for yourself. Fit three T2 extender rigs to a ship and see what the change in shield HP is. If the stacking penalties apply, you should get an increase of:
(1+0.2) * (1+(0.2*.869)) * (1+(0.2*.571)) = 1.569, or about a 57% increase in shield HP.
If the stacking penalties don’t apply, you should get an increase of:
(1+0.2) * (1+0.2) * (1+0.2) = 1.728 or about a 73% increase in shield HP.
Seriously, go look at any rig or module that modifies shield resistance, and you’ll specifically see in the description that there is a penalty for using multiple modules. Now go look at the description for any rig or module that modifies shield amount or recharge time and you’ll see no such penalty.
At this point the forums are grumbling that I’m replying to you too frequently (wait, that’s a thing now?) so I’m going to leave this topic where it lies: your proposed change would buff passive shield tanking, especially in larger hulls, while at the same time resulting in larger buffers because those ships would likely be using extender rigs instead of purger rigs.
Good day sir. I hope you’ll try my experiment yourself.
both extenders and plates do not incur penalties.
regeneration modules do.
Good morning!
I realize that I made one mistake in my last post: I used shield HP percentage bonuses as an example because the direct results are easier to see. But the exact same math works for shield recharge rate/time even if it’s not quite so obvious. I waited to reply until I was sitting at home, in-game, with a Moa and five T2 shield rechargers to play with so I could fit them and quote the exact, in-game values to you.
0 rechargers: 3125 shield HP, 937.5s shield recharge time, 8HP/s reported* regen rate
1 recharger: 3125 shield HP, 796.88s shield recharge time, 9HP/s reported regen rate
2 rechargers: 3125 shield HP, 677.34s shield recharge time, 11HP/s reported regen rate
3 rechargers: 3125 shield HP, 575.74s shield recharge time, 13HP/s reported regen rate
4 rechargers: 3125 shield HP, 489.38s shield recharge time, 15HP/s reported regen rate
5 rechargers: 3125 shield HP, 415.97s shield recharge time, 18HP/s reported regen rate
Looking at the HP/s regen rate, it is clear that there is no diminishing returns. Adding your fifth recharger actually provides you with more HP/s than adding your first one. The absolute reduction in shield recharge time does decrease with each recharger applied, but that’s not an artificial reduction applied by EvE as a stacking penalty, that’s just the fact that each additional recharger is reducing a smaller number by 15%.
QED
CCP knew what they were doing when they kept these stats so low everywhere except for purger rigs; the rigs are limited to 2/3 per ship, so no stacking penalty was necessary there. If you want to see the kinds of levels you were proposing, you’d need to make shield recharge time stacking penalized to accommodate larger ships that can fit more than 2/3 of these modules. (Which, incidentally, I don’t think is an inherently bad idea, just not a needed one.)
*as reported by the in-game fitting window, with my skills which are maxed out.
EDITS: It’s early and I haven’t had my caffeine yet, LOL!
they don’t.
Making small ships even faster, using SHIELD RECHARGERS with an completely unnecessary speed boost added means that people fitting to out run missiles during pvp just became 10 or 15% more powerful.
Whenever a mod does two things balancing becomes substantially harder to control. I know CCP has done this with modules but it really is a poor development strategy but then CCP devs suck at their jobs so this isnt surprising. Also, players may become more and more confused where improvements to things they wish to improve upon on their ships should be found. The engineering skills is not where one would intuitively look for mods to increase the power of their shields and yet we have the power diagnostic module that does just that. I bring up this example specifically because i played this game for about 2 years before i realized that power diagnostic mods could increase my shield strength.
You say you’re not buffing regeneration but you are because now you can, as you claim yourself, use rigs for other things which then makes the ship on the whole more powerful and so we need more rebalancing to offset this new OP setup.
There is nothing wrong with the current game mechanics of passive fits, they are made to work with specific ships well and not well with most ships, this makes the mechanic interesting, making it so that more and more players start making more and more of the same or similar choices decreases game interest, as the game play becomes increasingly homogenized.
Like all the ideas you have proposed this one also sucks and is poorly conceived and it scares me that you are a game DEV as your ideas would be horrifyingly bad for EVE.
Lets put aside the numbers for a moment, even though i disagree with your rates (as they are not including DR). I am near capped on shield skills and i only regenerate at 300 / s, So your math is not correct if you are posting what you see in eve fitting.
Lets put the above aside and talk about the actual numbers for a moment.
What if i told you its commonplace for 300/s?
What if i told you there are ships that regenerate for 650-700 (or more) / s?
Would 400/s, still bother you?
If ccp has not nerfed 700 down to 300 (and they wont because it will absolutely destroy that ship if they remove module slots from it) then we cannot expect 400 to be op.
Further more. If you do missions in 300/s you will actually come across times with level 3s that the tank is broken. This shows that the tank is slightly under powered, as since passive tank gives up all of its slots for tanking, it should be significantly stronger then other active builds, but its not in fact it barely beats it. Active boostes with amps and cap injectors can out tank passive, while out damaging it.
This shows is that the regeneration modules do in fact need to be changed.
Argument number 2
If i am wrong (which i do not think i am) about regeneration modules not having penalties that is actually a really good thing for the modules, as it opens us up with the option of buffing them significantly and adding DR penalties to it.
As a designer however, I do not like the idea of this a lot as it makes them basically feel the same. Imo, I’d much rather ditch the entire concept of active tanking in place of passive tanking, with a rework that allows less module slots to be used.
since this post i have been playing wit the idea that recharges are kept passive, and are limited to 1 per a ship.
There is no stacking penalty for passive shields.
Write that in your ■■■■■■■ head.
useless
useless, again.
My loki can tank 1400 dps omni but that means it needs to sacrifice like 10 slots for tanking. besides the hacking module and the mwd it has nothing.
My guess is that you shitifit.
Please stop using this word. You are insulting real developers, those who don’t need to say “as a developer” in each of their argument to make them interesting.
I’m not including the diminishing rewards penalties because the game doesn’t include the diminishing rewards penalties. You can disagree with me all you want, but you’re demonstrably wrong wrong here.
May I suggest that you post your fit and provide the same statistics that I provided above from in the game client (shield HP, shield recharge time, passive shield HP/s)? It seems that the issue here isn’t passive shield tanking per se, it’s how you are passive shield tanking. You keep mentioning the Moa for example, which is not a particularly stellar choice for passive tanking. It’s a very niche technique and only certain ships can do it well; typically you want to do it on battlecruisers like the Drake or Myrmidon to take advantage of their much higher base shield HP and greater number of slots.
I agree with you that shield rechargers and shield flux coils are in kind of a useless state at the moment, and I think you’re kind of on the right path towards fixing them, if you include making shield recharge time stacking penalized, which it currently isn’t. But any proper discussion of those fixes needs to be done with the understanding of how it actually works now which you don’t seem to have.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.