DUST Search - [Idea] - New high slot module "Armor Repair Overdrive"

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

[Idea] - New high slot module "Armor Repair Overdrive"

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 708	Posted - 2014.07.17 06:33:00 - [1] - Quote Hey I got a idea. A new high slot module which repairs armor HP/s much like current armor repair modules, except it has a delay which starts after you stop taking damage. Kinda like shields with their delays except for armor. But there's a twist! They increase suit repair rate by a certain percentage of its normal repair rate. Here's what I have been thinking for numbers. We can change them around and whatnot obviously. Bas - 5% armor repair rate increase, 10 s delay, CPU 20, PG 3 ADV - 10% armor repair rate increase, 8 s delay, CPU 40, PG 5 Pro - 15% armor repair rate increase, 6 s delay, CPU 60, PG 9 Lore: Once dropsuit systems reach a stable condition after sustaining damage, an overdrive repair cycle is activated increasing armor repair efficiency. (Idk made that **** up) Reasoning: With amarr assault going to a 2/5 slot layout there was some question whether gallente could keep up. This better allows the gallente to fulfill their high regen armor dreams. Repair rate increase percentage keeps it interesting. It's much like how recharger and regulators make a good pair and help diversify shield fittings! Also it doesn't allow people to stack just plates and still get a delayed armor rep, because it works off your suits usual repair rate. They should be fairly hard to fit too and more towards CPU like normal armor repairers. I think this would be a very useful tool for armor tankers and help diversify their fit. Plus it's super cool. Dearest Rattati or Logibro, would this be even possible? We could add it to the armor repair skill with the bonus applying to its repair rate increase percentage. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 712	Posted - 2014.07.17 13:51:00 - [2] - Quote OK well here's a gallente assault fit. I have no idea about fitting limitations but here it goes. I should note that I think these should be quite CPU intensive... But the numbers I have are just a starting point. Low slots 2x complex armor repairer 1x complex armor plate 1x complex ferro High slot 3x complex armor Overdrive (new module) OK so with this fit you'll have around 500 armor and 20 hp/s normal regen. The three proto armor repair Overdrives will add 15 hp/s after the 6 second delay. What this means is, if you have to regen all 500 armor, it will save you 9 seconds, assuming you take no damage additional armor damage which would reset the delay. It doesn't change armor tanking brawling but it helps armor tankers inbetween fights. Thoughts? What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 714	Posted - 2014.07.17 15:56:00 - [3] - Quote Ok here's another fit I came up with for the gal assault. I spent some more time on this one to get the numbers right. 2x Complex Ferro 1x Complex Plate 1x Complex repairer 2x complex armor overdrive (new module) 1x damage mod This gives about 575 armor hp with a base armor rep around 11 hp/s. The armor rep overdrivers will add 31.25% at lvl 5 (assuming they get armor repair skill bonus). So 2 of them will equal 62.5% (maybe there should be stacking penalties). This would make your armor rep jump to 17.8 after 6 second delay. Is this overpowered?? Could consider normalizing the delay time for all tiers to say 10 seconds. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 714	Posted - 2014.07.17 16:19:00 - [4] - Quote taxi bastard wrote: i am pretty sure they are still trying to make shields catch up with Armour ATM - i fear this is wrongly timed Yeah its a good point but like Lynn said, armor tankers need something related to armor tanking in their high slots. Shield tankers have regulators for their lows. Balance could be achieved afterwards. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 716	Posted - 2014.07.17 18:57:00 - [5] - Quote Leeroy Gannarsein wrote: Okay, so I really like it. Compromising EHP for less downtime between combat - it's cool, very cool. At the very outside we'd have Gallente (or Amarr) Sentinels with at most about 5hp/s out-of-combat regen. The question would be calculating at each tier which is a better module to use - the shield extender or the overdrive, and that's not something I'm capable of doing, especially at 4:30 am. So I'll just give you my full support. Yeah it would have to be good enough to compete with shield extenders. It would be directly augmenting an armor tankers main HP pool which is a good benefit on its own. I think it should be weaker than normal armor repair so that you can't stack armor plates and the overdrive to achieve greater results. Any thoughts on whether it should be percentage based or just a set hp/s value? I think tonight I'll try to make a spreadsheet with multiple fits for gal and amarr suits. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 722	Posted - 2014.07.17 22:58:00 - [6] - Quote Thokk Nightshade wrote: Are there stacking penalties on these bad boys? Because if not, I could see a HUGE OP issue. So let's just say I want to deck out my Proto Cal logi for armor. I could run 4 armor plates and 5 armor repair overdrives (4 low slots & 5 high slots)? Without stacking penalties, I'm going to have a 125% increase in repair speed (with all proto). Well considering I designed this module to help gallente make use of its three high slots, id say no (but we may want to consider a stacking penalty idk). However if you dont use any armor repairers in your low slots you will have no benefit from this module. 125% increased armor repair of 0 is still 0. But hmmm.. you raise a good point. Lets say you put one complex armor repairer in the low (~ 10 hp/s). Then after a 6 second delay it would jump to 22.5 hp/s. Would this be OP for your armor tanked suit? Options to consider... 1. Increase delay time 2. Decrease percentage ... im working on a spreadsheet comparing amarr and gal assault fits What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 723	Posted - 2014.07.18 00:20:00 - [7] - Quote Edited OP with new spreadsheet to compare the gal and amarr assault armor tank fittings. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 733	Posted - 2014.07.18 08:03:00 - [8] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Rig Slots anyone? Not sure what that is... but I like it. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 733	Posted - 2014.07.18 08:53:00 - [9] - Quote Velociraptor antirrhopus wrote: no. because shields are meant for quick engagements then finding cover and regenerating quickly. armor is for sitting there and dealing out damage while taking it which is why armor shouldn't have comparable repair to shields This isn't really supposed to make armor regen even close to shield regen. In some of my theorycrafting from the spreadsheet, even the highest regen armor suit still took 10 seconds for complete regeneration, more if I increase the "delay" in my module idea. This suit only had 450 armor. Caldari assault will soon be capable of repping that same amount of hp in 7 seconds. We are talking about an armor suit that is completely designed around armor repair; 6 out of 7 slots (let alone if its even possible CPU and PG wise which is unlikely). And why shouldn't armor tankers be able to build an active tank, so long as they don't infringe on their shield tanked counterparts or tip the balance. Also, the fact remains that armor tankers have nothing to put in their high slots except damage mods, which have stacking penalties. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 733	Posted - 2014.07.18 08:55:00 - [10] - Quote trollface dot jpg wrote: How about instead of MORE armor buffing modules we fix the balance between shield tanking and armor tanking first. Huh? How about that? Oh great, like we did for weapons? That worked really well. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?

Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 744	Posted - 2014.07.18 17:09:00 - [11] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Boot Booter wrote: trollface dot jpg wrote: How about instead of MORE armor buffing modules we fix the balance between shield tanking and armor tanking first. Huh? How about that? Oh great, like we did for weapons? That worked really well. They're a lot closer now than they used to be, balance between them has a lot more factors than shields v armor however. And adding more ways for armor to be better than shields won't narrow that gap any. You can say that they are almost balanced right now, and they are. But almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades and widening the gap would be foolish when we are so close to getting it fixed. Im not saying throw these modules in without thought of balance. Obviously they may need to come with a shield regulator buff or something. Stifling ideas because you think that it will tip a current in game balance is just plain dumb. Not saying you are, but if we all adopted this mentality nothing would ever be added to the game. I just don't understand why so many people have brought this up. Are you happy with the current selection of modules? Should dust remain this way forever in fear of tipping balances? The whole thing that makes dust unique is adding new stuff and diversity... Secondly, HP modules rule dust. We should be looking for ways to improve active tanking to diversify fittings and bring an end to brick tanked suits. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 744	Posted - 2014.07.18 22:30:00 - [12] - Quote Baal, we share similar concerns and I am aware that this may require a client side update. It's really not a huge armor tanking buff, the concept really only works for suits designed for high armor repair. I'm working first on balancing armor buffer versus active, then I will consider armor vs. Shield. Anyway enough of that talk, the problem still remains that armor tanking does not have a high slot module. I have thought extensively about this or the idea of moving low modules to high slots. Perhaps the only one that would work would be the stamina (green bottles) and they are kinda lackluster at that. Here's the issue, amarr assault is getting a 2/5 layout and gallente a 3/4. How can a gallente make use of its more high slot module layout without dual tanking? In short it can't. Damage mods have stacking penalties, so having 3 over 2 makes a small difference. The prototype solution I've come up with is finding some way to boost armor repair from a high slot module. I thought my idea was kinda cool and would help gallente achieve this. No its probably not perfect but I haven't heard any better ideas. I'm not gonna quit on this because people come in and present hand wavy arguments about balance, or people get irritable. The theory of my idea is sound (perhaps not the module I've presented and I'm working on finding that out). I hope eventually I can find a nice place with balance between buffer and active for both armor and shields, obviously considering concerns the community has, so thanks for posting them. I am and always have been a shields guy, so don't worry. This is not some master plan to make armor better than shields. It's a plan to end dual tanking and help diversify fittings. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?
Boot Booter Escrow Removal and Acquisition Dark Taboo 744	Posted - 2014.07.18 22:59:00 - [13] - Quote @ Jack, thanks man. well the cal assault should be centered around high shield recharge value and high shield HP. This is why they are moving to 5/2 layout. The minmatar are centered around good delays with lower hp and recharge (obviously speed as well). So moving to the 4/3 layout allows the minnie assault to achieve this with both more regulators or kin cats. Min vs Cal shield tanking is balanced in that respect. Here's some cal assault numbers 450 shield @ 86 hp/s with a 3 sec delay here's some min assault numbers 400 shield @ 50 hp/s with a 2.5 sec delay (but way more athletic) On the other hand armor active tanking does not have a high slot module meaning having more lows is by far more valuable. This is why amarr will outclass gallente in armor tanking. From this concern is where my idea stems not from the armor vs shield concern. These issues will have to be addressed after armor active vs buffer is solved. amarr... 600 hp @ 30 hp/s gallente 550 hp @ 20 hp/s <--- do you see why im concerned particularly about this. I do like the shield rep idea too. What happened to the repair tool glow? Why won't CCP answer? Conspiracy?

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.