|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17666
   |
Posted - 2015.03.15 20:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Are you referring to any of the following
Reactive Plating - Plating that has comparatively low resistances across the board but adjusts its primary resistance types based on incoming damage.
Energized Plating- Static across the board resistances.
Damage Type Specific Plating - Higher Resistance values vs a single damage type.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17667
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 20:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Nocturnal Soul wrote:True Adamance wrote:Are you referring to any of the following
Reactive Plating - Plating that has comparatively low resistances across the board but adjusts its primary resistance types based on incoming damage.
Energized Plating- Static across the board resistances.
Damage Type Specific Plating - Higher Resistance values vs a single damage type. The 1st & 3rd
Reactive would be damn difficult to do and most certainly only useful on Sentinels given TTK is longer on them.
Damage Type Specific could work wonders, especially for Shield Suits to plug the EM resistance against Laser Weapons.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17669
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 22:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nocturnal Soul wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:Reactive playing could work on vehicle modules and I'd love to have that.
It could work for infantry too but it would be too difficult to work with it. Care to explain why it would be to difficult?
Reactive Plating works under the premise that over time the values shift from being universal across all damage types into one single damage type.
Aka its a resistance plate the gets better the longer the same damage type is used against it.
Infantry combat has too low a TTK for this to be a useful module on anything but a sentinel in most respects so finding a place for it that isnt solely the doman of the Sentinel is tricky. That's even before programming something like this into the game....
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17670
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 22:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sgt Kirk wrote:Nocturnal Soul wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:Reactive playing could work on vehicle modules and I'd love to have that.
It could work for infantry too but it would be too difficult to work with it. Care to explain why it would be to difficult? It's a similar reason to why reactive plates aren't often used on Frigates. The current TTK doesn't allow much absorption of damage for the reactive plate to finally settle its resistances. So in a firefight, it's over before the fight could even finish a cycle. Another reason why reactives wouldn't perform ideally with infantry is that you have multiple people using all different kinds of damage types. So lets say you're a heavy suit which would be about the only suit that could make use of it. There's a group of enemies and you're down into your armor so your reactive plate kicks in. You're surviving a long time against the onslaught of enemies but your reactive plate resistances are all pretty much staying the same. Why? Because the enemy you're facing are diverse. One enemy is dealing projectile damage, one using plasma damage, explosive damage with one laser damage . Your resistances are now all over the place with not a lot to spread around at all. Even though you survive this engagement two guys with Rail rifles and bolt pistols come in and take your ass out in a second.
Tell that to the corp Tormentor Kirk.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17673
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 00:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
DRT 99 wrote:reactive plating that shifts resists like in eve would be really usefull in FW.
have a teamate shoot you with an SMG a bit and walk into the heavy infested building
have a teamate shoot you with an AR for a bit and facetank the blaster tank, or get shotgunned and laugh.
This is precisely the reason I'd rather not see Reactive in the game.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17675
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 02:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:DRT 99 wrote:reactive plating that shifts resists like in eve would be really usefull in FW.
have a teamate shoot you with an SMG a bit and walk into the heavy infested building
have a teamate shoot you with an AR for a bit and facetank the blaster tank, or get shotgunned and laugh. This is precisely the reason I'd rather not see Reactive in the game. You shoot yourself with smaller bullets to build up an immunity to larger and larger bullets
Indeed. Artifically build up resistances is not the intended function of the resistance plate nor with our low TTK and variety of damage types would this be worth having.
On vehicles perhaps this could function reasonably well as the longer a tank duel goes on the better your resistances get against the primary damage type.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17680
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 06:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool.
Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)?
Well the Damage Type Specific Modules are usually simply named after the damage types they resist
EM Resistance Plating
Thermic Resistance Plating
Blah Blah Resistance Plating
If you felt specific names were required you could name them based on minerals that exist that have a fair propensity or resisting great temperatures, forces, or explosions.
E.G
You could use
Thermic Energized Armour Plating/ Layering
EM Energized Armour Plating/ Layering
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17680
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 07:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
LOOKMOM NOHANDS wrote:I thought about these before and I am not sure they are a good fit.
Yes we have them in Eve but we are also able to select an ammunition type to counter those resists. Damage profiles are already bad enough as they stand without this.
How so. A player gives up a specific slot to plug a resistance that could be of the meta or that they are weakest against. Their eHP is technically lesser but they are not necessarily subject to that weapons potent damage profile.
E.G- Laser Weapons.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17684
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 10:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
shaman oga wrote:Well, considering that i was running around with my min sentinel with 570 shield and suddenly a charged shot of SCR rifle took me to zero shield, i think that resistance modules can be quite useless, at least for shields.
They will bring more problems than benefits imo.
Charged shot will serve to prevent a significant portion of your armour being annihilated by such a situation by nullifying that 20% damage profile.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17690
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 20:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:Sgt Kirk wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool.
Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? Me and True Adamance(if he even shows up) will be more than happy to give you some good in-depth numbers. People may not realize that something like this can't be a flat set bonus for all defenses and damage types, that would cause imbalance. Me and True will take theses things into consideration and will be back with good results. I hope these come with Suit Capacitors (Or at least cooldowns) Also: I would love to see active module tanking on suit side as well. We have lots of passive mods for infantry, but it would be really cool to see active mods on infantry. For example: A shield booster would go a long way on a Cal Heavy, and the same for a heavy rep booster for a Gal Sent. Active Resist for an Amarr Heavy to tank HMG fire. Scouts could then have equipment or grenades that could sap suits "Capacitors" deactivating and draining all active mods. Logis could get a tool reduces cooldowns (Remote Capacitor). Even Cooler? Active Damage mods for when you gotta breach a room, or to put massive DPS on a vehicle. You would sacrifice overall HP or constant benefits for short, powerful bursts of HP or Damage (or Rep). Benefit of this tanking is the extra power gained in bursts would make you difficult to fight in cycle, but susceptible to flanking when off cycle (or even being forced to attack/defend in cycles.) I also want my Biotic Booster mods. Sprint at 30 m/s in a Min Scout GOTTA GO FAST
Active modules would be tough to do....perhaps just let us try for the passives. I'll need Kirk to run me through his thinking in the spread sheet and we can go from there.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17696
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 21:49:00 -
[11] - Quote
WeapondigitX V7 wrote:Fizzer XCIV wrote:WeapondigitX V7 wrote:Avallo Kantor wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Well, actually, if there is some OP meta, like let's say Scrambler Rifles, being able to say "I want to be properly defended against that and sacrffice HP" is pretty cool.
Why not throw some ideas out, types, names, fitting cost, and values plus slot (high/low)? Hardeners based on each damage type, that reduce incoming damage by 10%, 20%, 25% per level. One for Shield, and Armor, with Shields being Highs, and Armor being lows. (They should not be able to be used without sacrificing the same spaces you use for buffer mods) And similar to how extender vs hardener mods work on vehicles: About 120% CPU than same level extender / plate, and 53% PG compared to same level extender / plate. -snip- If they are only going to work against a single damage type, they should be passives. If they reduce all damage, they should be active. Reason being that you can't really anticipate what weapon you will come across next, the majority of the time. By the time you know what weapon you are fighting next, it is usually to late to worry about activating a module, as you are likely fighting the weapon already. Also, like Ratatti said "anti-FotM"... I would set modules like these at 15/20/25% passive resistances at all times against each damage type. Make them a little easier to fit than standard HP mods (since they won't be nearly as effective overall for 80% of the weapons you'll face)... Probably about the fitting read of Ferroscales/Reactives. Resistance mods that just reduce all incoming damage by a set percentage however, should definitely be actives. With mods like they you don't have to worry about what you'll be fighting only when you'll be fighting. I'm actually not sure how these should be balanced, really. At what HP level should they become more effective than HP mods? Should they stack? If so, should they have stacking penalties? How long should they last? A single 1v1 or a full firefight? If they are active and reduce all damage by a %, and can or can not be stacked, they would also be able to reliably be used as defensive modules to counter a ambush, assassination from behind if the assassin uses weapons like rifles or massdrivers. It is already possible to be hit/ambushed from behind and turn around and kill your opponent if the gear difference is large enough, and the assassin is only moderately good at aiming. With active hardening mods it would be much easier to do that if your hardener reduced all damage. If active hardeners only affected 1 damage type, this would be less of an issue, because you sometimes cant tell what weapon your assassin is using when he is firing from behind you at a large distance. You could however create active hardener modules that reduced all damage by a % but with a large activation delay, such as 3 seconds, this would limit those modules to being used during well planned attacks, when entering hotspots before the anticipated assassin comes, or when you burst out of cover to attack an enemy in a firefight that is also close to you behind cover.
They will not be active by all accounts Kirk is not looking into presenting active modules and at this point nor should he.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17707
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 02:24:00 -
[12] - Quote
I like your proposal but why is EM resistance increased by 1.5% across both damage specific plate types. My main concern is not the Shield Resistance Values but those on the Energized Plating.
With the negative efficiency vs Armour that would be an equivalent 47% damage resistance vs Armour its a little bit higher than I expected proposals would suggest.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17707
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 02:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:
It's because Laser weaponry receives a 20% increase to shield damage and a 15% increase to damage proficiency, which totaled, gives a much higher damage percentage bonus than any other rifle type. The modules were designed around the rifles as a whole (note that the Explosive plate/amplifer doesn't provide a reduction to Splash damage, which is the Adaptive's thing).
It's not because EM is being singled out, every (specific damage) resistance module is designed to counter the bonuses that weapon type provides or the inverse. So, if EM provides a 20% increase to Shield Damage, than the Shield Module would counter that while the Armor module would provide an -additional- resistance toward that damage profile.
Yes, the negative efficiency vs Armor would bring it up to 47% damage resistance, but the player is sacrificing a lot to be able to get that. The PG/CPU is designed to be costly but not punishing and it's taking up a slot that they would otherwise fill with buffer/regeneration which applies to all areas. It's a 47% damage resistance but they're not gaining anything against the other damage types; essentially wasting the slot.
Pardon me for asking but is that not the same for explosive damage weapons like the Mass Driver. I only ask since the resistance for Explosives vs Shielding amounts to a 45.5% resistance. To some degree I was expecting an inverse profile. I suspected you might opted for the addition 1.5% as a result of EM weapons DPS compared to Explosive weapons DPS.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17708
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 02:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
It's because Laser weaponry receives a 20% increase to shield damage and a 15% increase to damage proficiency, which totaled, gives a much higher damage percentage bonus than any other rifle type. The modules were designed around the rifles as a whole (note that the Explosive plate/amplifer doesn't provide a reduction to Splash damage, which is the Adaptive's thing).
It's not because EM is being singled out, every (specific damage) resistance module is designed to counter the bonuses that weapon type provides or the inverse. So, if EM provides a 20% increase to Shield Damage, than the Shield Module would counter that while the Armor module would provide an -additional- resistance toward that damage profile.
Yes, the negative efficiency vs Armor would bring it up to 47% damage resistance, but the player is sacrificing a lot to be able to get that. The PG/CPU is designed to be costly but not punishing and it's taking up a slot that they would otherwise fill with buffer/regeneration which applies to all areas. It's a 47% damage resistance but they're not gaining anything against the other damage types; essentially wasting the slot.
Pardon me for asking but is that not the same for explosive damage weapons like the Mass Driver. I only ask since the resistance for Explosives vs Shielding amounts to a 45.5% resistance. To some degree I was expecting an inverse profile. I suspected you might opted for the addition 1.5% as a result of EM weapons DPS compared to Explosive weapons DPS. Right. Explosive weapons do +20/-20 but the Energized Armor Plate (Explosive) doesn't provide a resistance for that. The (Adaptive) one is the only one that provides a resistance to Splash damage so that the modules loosely mimic the design of the Sentinel resistances where Splash damage is considered separate of the other Damage Types. I explained this in the Design Philosophy section of the spreadsheet but maybe I should rename the module so that it is more clear.
Again wasn't criticising just wondering about your thought process which I see now is outlined.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
17709
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 03:06:00 -
[15] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:True Adamance wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:
It's because Laser weaponry receives a 20% increase to shield damage and a 15% increase to damage proficiency, which totaled, gives a much higher damage percentage bonus than any other rifle type. The modules were designed around the rifles as a whole (note that the Explosive plate/amplifer doesn't provide a reduction to Splash damage, which is the Adaptive's thing).
It's not because EM is being singled out, every (specific damage) resistance module is designed to counter the bonuses that weapon type provides or the inverse. So, if EM provides a 20% increase to Shield Damage, than the Shield Module would counter that while the Armor module would provide an -additional- resistance toward that damage profile.
Yes, the negative efficiency vs Armor would bring it up to 47% damage resistance, but the player is sacrificing a lot to be able to get that. The PG/CPU is designed to be costly but not punishing and it's taking up a slot that they would otherwise fill with buffer/regeneration which applies to all areas. It's a 47% damage resistance but they're not gaining anything against the other damage types; essentially wasting the slot.
Pardon me for asking but is that not the same for explosive damage weapons like the Mass Driver. I only ask since the resistance for Explosives vs Shielding amounts to a 45.5% resistance. To some degree I was expecting an inverse profile. I suspected you might opted for the addition 1.5% as a result of EM weapons DPS compared to Explosive weapons DPS. Right. Explosive weapons do +20/-20 but the Energized Armor Plate (Explosive) doesn't provide a resistance for that. The (Adaptive) one is the only one that provides a resistance to Splash damage so that the modules loosely mimic the design of the Sentinel resistances where Splash damage is considered separate of the other Damage Types. I explained this in the Design Philosophy section of the spreadsheet but maybe I should rename the module so that it is more clear. Again wasn't criticising just wondering about your thought process which I see now is outlined. I know you're not criticising =P I'm just trying to explain what I was thinking. I'm open to suggestions if you have any.
I haz need think....... too many thunks need a thinking in mah brainz.
Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you.
Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
|
|
|
| |
|