Stefan Stahl
Seituoda Taskforce Command
930
   |
Posted - 2015.01.27 20:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi.
I think every vehicle module should exist in active & passive variants - if logically possible. Let's discuss on how to come up with numbers for such modules. I don't want to discuss final numbers - thus no spreadsheets here  - I rather want to discuss what reasoning could be used to come up with such numbers.
I can think of the following candidates:
1. Active armor repair modules
2. Passive shield & armor resistance modules
3. Passive damage mods
4. Passive engine mods
5. Passive shield regulators
6. Passive shield rechargers
Preferably each of those new modules should go in the opposite side of the existing one. That way both armor and shield vehicles can use all their slots without having to modify existing modules too much. As long as fitting requirements aren't messed up this shouldn't cause any power-creep. If you can only fit three large tanking mods on a Gunnlogi now you won't be able to fit 5 after this change, even if there is a larger number of useful options. You'll just have to think harder on what compromises to make.
These are my suggestions on how to come up with numbers for these modules:
1. Active armor repair mods:
If a complex light shield booster gives 900 shield hp, which is 1000 ehp against rails, a comparably useful complex active armor repper needs to yield about 1100 armor hp (still 1000 ehp against rails) for a similar fitting cost at a similar interval. Whether it does this in 5 220 hp bursts or all at once is of comparatively low importance.
2. Passive resistance mods:
When a current complex shield hardener gives a 40% resistance for 40% of the time (after maxed vehicle upgrades) a complex passive resistance modules should give 16% resistance for 100% of the time (40% * 40% = 16% * 100%), again at a similar fitting cost.
(30 sec activation time + 45 sec downtime makes for a 75 sec cycle. 30 sec uptime per 75 sec cycle is 40% uptime. The same logic is applied further on.)
Alternatively: If 2.5 complex active shield hardeners give 40% shield resistance for 100% of the time, a single passive resistance mod should give 16% shield resistance (40%/2.5 = 16%)
3. Passive damage mods:
When a current complex damage mod gives a 20% bonus for ~45% of the time a complex passive damage mod should give a ~9% damage increase for 100% of the time (20% * 45% = 9% * 100%), assuming a similar fitting cost.
4. Passive engine mods:
When a fuel injector gives a 25% bonus for ~41% of the time a passive damage mod should give a ~10% damage increase for 100% of the time.
(I don't think this rule works for passive afterburners... Any ideas?  )
5. Vehicle shield regulators:
A shield vehicle repairs about 200 hp/s. The Myron has the worst shield recharge delay of all Caldari vehicles (that I'm aware of) at 8 seconds. At a 20% reduction to shield recharge delay a Myron stands to gain 320 hp every 8 seconds over an unmodified Myron, or 40 hp/s. This is ~44 hp/s against rails, while a small complex passive armor mod will generate 84 hp/s against rails (after maxed vehicle upgrades). I'm trying to be conservative with this module because a dual hardened Gunnlogi with two regulators could become very evil if this module is too good.
(Increase Gunnlogi shield recharge delay if deemed OP.)
6. Passive vehicle shield recharger:
If three small complex passive armor repair mods generates ~252 hp/s against rails (3*84 hp/s), three complex shield recharge modules should not increase a base recharge rate of 200 hp/s by more than 150% (for a maximum bonus of 250 hp/s). Thus a single complex vehicle shield recharger should yield at most a 36% increase in recharge rate (1.36^3 = 2.5, omitting stacking penalties on purpose here), assuming similar fitting requirements to the complex passive armor repair mod.
Do you agree with the reasoning behind these modules?
Did you spot any mistakes you'd like to make fun of me for?
Do these modules not appropriately cater to your power-fantasies?
Discuss! |