XLSE (eXtra-Large Shield Extender)

modules

(Anderson Geten) #1

Shield modules have a weird naming :

  • S for frigate
  • M for destroyer
  • L for cruiser
  • XL for battleship

There is no XL extender ATM. I propose to remedy that. I try to make it in line with other sizes , I give formula that I found

stats:

  • 50 cpu (CPU=10+size*10)
  • 450 pwr
  • 86m sig (sig=2*3.5^size)
  • +3320 shield (shield=43*(power+sig)/size)

if somebody has better formula, you are welcome to help.


(Makshima Shogo) #2

A greater version of shield extender/armor plate, something between 1600 and 25000 and L and Cap would be great.

Some tests:

Large shield Extender II

45 CPU
160 PowerGrid
2600 Shield
25Sig

CPU to Shield Ratio = 2600/45 = 57.8
Grid to Shield Ratio = 2600/160 = 16.25
Sig to Shield Ratio = 2600/25 = 104

Your suggestions:

CPU to Shield Ratio = 3320/50 = 66.4
Grid to Shield Ratio = 3320/450 = 7.3
Sig to Shield Ratio = 3320/86 = 40
L to XL Shield Ratio = 3320/2600 = 1.27

For a 27% boost in shield
You get a 15% more efficient use of CPU(66.4/57.8 = 15%)
You get a 222% drop in prower grid efficiency(16.25/7.3 = 222%)
And Sig doesn’t matter because your already a BS lol

But It is also slot effective so yea seems worth it to me since BS’s have very good grid it can handle that huge amount more grid cost, might be alright to increase shield and cpu since BS’s are really slow so they could do with more tank.


(Anderson Geten) #3

How I got those values :

I looked the values for S, M and L sizes
I try to exhibit a function value = f(size)
I use this function with size=XL (4)
for other (T1)extenders, cpu requirement = size*10+10. Check it yourself. So I use this formula.

I provided the function when I found one. For pwr I use an exponential regression.
I do not make any consideration of usability. I just try to stick with what already exists, and deduce what should exist.


(Old Pervert) #4

If you add bigger extenders/plates, you’ll either need to add role bonuses to reduce PG requirements to battleships, or give battleships more PG. They’re balanced around large extenders and 1600mm plates.

The moment you start tweaking their PG, fits that were not viable before become viable now.

I’d suggest a different approach altogether.

First, double or triple their base HP. They need this regardless.
Then, make the XL extender/plate grant the same raw HP bonus, along with a % bonus (DR would of course apply).
Finally, increase the PG (double). After fitting skills, you’re looking at about 240PG for each module, which would definitely become a fitting consideration.


(Anderson Geten) #5

If you have a suggestion, make your own thread please. Don’t pollute other people’s thread.


(Old Pervert) #6

er… I was replying to your idea with a more feasible approach?

Your idea as it was posted is untenable, for the reasons that I said. I then gave a work-around involving your idea to discuss.


(Anderson Geten) #7

no, you are providing your own suggestion. It’s fine to discuss about how the ORIGINAL proposal would behave, not to make a new one. You must make your own thread if you have a different suggestion.

Now if you consider this feature is not possible, you can very simply explain why. Here you just say “it does not work, here is my suggesion”, which is thread hijacking.


(Krysenth) #8

He did, you clearly just dont like how he went about it.


(Old Pervert) #9

Oh.

Allow me to fix my post then.


(Anderson Geten) #10

could you explain this part ? Numbers would be appreciated.


(Old Pervert) #11

…either you’ve played Eve long enough to have the knowledge to very easily answer that yourself, or you have not. If you have not, you really shouldn’t be posting suggestions for changes.

You asked for numbers, but honestly, it’s the concept that matters. I could quote dozens of fits, but without explaining the logic, the underlying message could be lost:

Ships have limited PG. Even battleships. This PG is added specifically to force them to make fitting decisions.

The moment you add a new module with 450 PG (to put this into perspective, a T2 LSE requires 160 PG, which is what battleships fit now) you’re very nearly tripling their PG requirements for buffer.

Without a corresponding increase in PG, most fits won’t be able to fit these without expensive sacrifices. Expensive sacrifices get overlooked by people who min/max.


(Anderson Geten) #12

So, did you make test or not, to say it is not possible? What you just said seems very relevant to yourself :

The good thing is, I did. I tested a rokh with those values and it gives it better buffer.
The rokh has 18k+ pwr, a XLSEI with the values I gave takes 2.4% of its pwr. less than 2.2% with a Lancillary rig. A LSE is barely better than a shield recharger, a XLSE would be definitely better
Basically on this fit (passive rokh) a XLSE would be definitely better than a LSE.


(Anderson Geten) #13

a raven with 6cruise missiles II , mjd, 100mn II, 4BCU II,still has 3k+ pwr.
How comes it needs more ?


(Old Pervert) #14

Congratulations. You tested “a fit”. Do you assert that no shield battleships suffer from power grid shortages? Do you assert that a useful battleship will be able to fit these reliably? If they add a module, they need to add one that a player can choose to fit on more than just a few boats.

My point is that people who actually make the biggest bang for their buck already won’t be able to fit these. Your idea will only work for shitboats like the rokh. Which, by the way, we have no idea what this fit even is.


(Anderson Geten) #15

No. I give numbers, which you don’t.
I explain what I did, why I think this way, which you don’t. You only bring things like “they are balanced for X” without any explanation, and other “if you don’t know that then you are bad”.

Just because you don’t know what a rokh is, does not mean it can’t get a use for this module.
I picked a gun shield BS, because I think that is what this module should be balanced around. Missile boats usually have more spare pwr than turrets.
It does not mean than all other BS would get a use of this. It only means this module would have its use.


(Old Pervert) #16

I played around with fits, and for the most part shield boats do not have any PG issues. I concede this.

That said you need to include 3200mm plates in this thread. Armor is always supposed to have better buffer than shield. One cannot exist without the other, unless you intend for nano boats to be as well tanked as armor boats.

And then one must ask why this module needs to exist, which circles me back to my own tweak of your suggestion.

The reason you want XLSEs is because battleships lack tank, yes? All of them, right?

If the entire class of ships is soft, which they are, why not increase their base stats? It’s a much simpler change to balance.


(Anderson Geten) #17

no, I don’t. Again, that is still no explanation. You are hinting you have a hidden reason and you don’t dare to explain it. You still didn’t give me number for the last thing I asked.

Stop saying “this is how it is” without any explanation. Really.

No. It is because shield BS could get a use of them. I really could not care less that armor BS can’t fit it.

Here you are . STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD ALREADY.


(Old Pervert) #18

Jesus christ. Did you bother to read the sentance just after that? Allow me to quote it again for you.

Perhaps you somehow doubt that armor is supposed to have better buffer then shield. Okay. Numbers you say… okay. An LSEII has an increase of 2600 HP. A 1600mm Steel II has an increase of 4800 HP.

It’s not my fault your idea lacks foresight. You wanted to go there, we’re going there. “Buff shield battleships by giving them bigger extenders” isn’t needed. Shield boats are supposed to be softer, because they’re faster. Giving them a bigger buffer helps them, yes. But saying “I don’t care about anything other than shield battleships” is what truly sinks this thread.

Even if they suck at it, CCP aims for balance. Proposing a whole new size of module for one type of boat, counter to the design that CCP themselves implemented, is rediculous.

Regardless, I’ve said my bit and I’m done with this thread. If someone else wishes to weigh in on this nonsense, feel free.


(Anderson Geten) #19

And STILL it is NOT a reason to make ANOTHER proposal( here 3200mm), which is what you were saying. You were NOT comparing my proposal to existing items, which is fine, you were making another proposal, which is hijacking.

My issue is that you don’t accept to stick to the topic and make your OWN thread when you have your OWN feature.

it’s your fault to not discuss this topic and propose another one.


(Makshima Shogo) #20

The problem with XL is that people will try use them as over-sized mods on BC’s and Cruisers so the extreme power grid does help with this, but at the same time an alternative to giving BS’s a HP bonus on all buffer items would provide the exact same effect. I like both options thou would be nice to see if CCP has any comments, but i’m not sure if they read this type of stuff.