These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Armor / shield rig concept discussion for Inferno

First post
Author
Quebber
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#61 - 2012-04-23 16:45:34 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This change is the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking.

Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing.


Rig list:


  • Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction rig
  • Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig


I hate to say this what the ^&*$ are you on?

Get your Ass into pvp, spend 2-3 months atleast of combat in REAL eve situations, then take a moment to rectify this absolutely ****** up design decision.

Stop trying to put us in nice neat boxes did you forget this is a sandbox?

Yes active tank needs tweaking but do not try to balance it in this way.
Go2
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2012-04-23 16:47:41 UTC
I think the OP DEV used a very active voice, as if saying "These things are going to happen" rather than something like "We need some feedback on XYZ ideas."

Your problem is "Active and Passive tanks need balancing" - why not just post that and solicit input from the players before going in a direction already ?


CCP Soundwave wrote:


No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.

CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#63 - 2012-04-23 16:48:11 UTC
corestwo wrote:
CCP: Fire this guy and put Soundwave on the job. He actually knows what he's doing. tia (thanks in advance)


Posting to say that this would end up terribly.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#64 - 2012-04-23 16:49:05 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.


Here's the collective feedback from players, then: When taken alone, his ideas suck. Now, there are leaks regarding capless shield boosters and some other things that may accompany this vision. Give us the full picture and maybe we'll change our mind, but these rig changes, on their own, are moronic.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
corestwo wrote:
CCP: Fire this guy and put Soundwave on the job. He actually knows what he's doing. tia (thanks in advance)


Posting to say that this would end up terribly.

I can't recall seeing any ideas this stupid from you so you'll have to forgive my skepticism at this statement.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2012-04-23 16:49:21 UTC
wts nanite repair paste for the overheating damage control itt
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#66 - 2012-04-23 16:49:29 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This change is the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking.

Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing.


Rig list:


  • Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction rig
  • Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig

Awesome change, exactly what's needed.

Fon Revedhort wrote:


2) Buffer vs. active tanking.

There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armour. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then.


Btw, should you want to address other crucial issues, I'd suggest you checking out my CSM campaign thread.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68075

CCP Ytterbium, yet again you proved you're one of those rare competent CCP'ers.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2012-04-23 16:50:51 UTC
Active tanks are completely pointless in anything but small-gang pvp, which relies on speed. The idea you can force a race into active tanking or passive tanking is nonsense: it's going to be what type of pvp you do. No active tank bonus will make active tanking (as opposed to buffer + logi) make sense in anything but rare situations.

Active tanks are now logistics ships, not modules.
Drew Solaert
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-04-23 16:50:56 UTC
As a Gallente pilot who loves active tanked ships in PvP, bloody love it.

I lied :o

Quebber
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#69 - 2012-04-23 16:52:02 UTC
If this is a discussion of ideas fine but the original post makes it sound like this is going in game and already decided, all of us know there is a situation with active vs passive tanks, I just do not want to see CCP going back to its old tactics of "we know best" when we find out a lot of ccp devs have never even fit a ship for pvp combat.
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#70 - 2012-04-23 16:52:25 UTC
Have you considered other possible drawbacks? Like +HP rigs (extenders/trimarks) penalizing the "other" HP stat, meaning trimarks reduce shield HP, extenders reduce armor HP?

How about a third category, which seems to be missing entirely: Remote-tank. We could use a +remote-rep-amount rig (with a drawback up for debate).

Generally I'm not opposed to these changes, but as I've already said it will do little to change the balance of active/passive tanking. The proposed turret changes ("damage scaling by sig radius"), making smaller ships take less damage from bigger guns (see "Titan changes - update" Thread) could together with this have an impact and make active tanking viable for ships that are small compared to those of the enemy.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#71 - 2012-04-23 16:52:38 UTC
corestwo wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.


Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.

Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard.


That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.
BABARR
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
Snuffed Out
#72 - 2012-04-23 16:54:21 UTC
Creat Posudol wrote:
Have you considered other possible drawbacks? Like +HP rigs (extenders/trimarks) penalizing the "other" HP stat, meaning trimarks reduce shield HP, extenders reduce armor HP?
.


Lol, why having a drawback then? Stop joking.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#73 - 2012-04-23 16:54:24 UTC
I'm not going to say that this is an inherently bad idea…


…but I am going to say that without knowing how you plan to actually balance active tanks vs. buffer tanks vs. passive tanks vs. sig tanks (the four tanking modes of EVE), this idea makes no sense.

People will still use buffer tanks because it's the only thing that keeps you alive between (remote) rep cycles. Basically, the reason we are seeing this current (longstanding) popularity of logistics ships is because you need both a buffer and an active tank to survive for any period of time, and what logistics ships let us do is move the active tank over to the highslots on another ship, rather than compete for the limited mid/lowslots on the local ship.

Unless you make local rep cycles so short as to be pretty much continuous — i.e. active tanking will behave just like passive shield tanking with its constant replenishment of HP — people will not stop using buffers, because they are still needed to survive. This means giving local reppers cycle times on the order of <0.5s… hope you've fed the hamsters. And even then, buffers are still a better choice for a number of reason — it's the only way to protect against alpha — so this change will just mean that people will eschew pretty much all tanking rigs except on turtling battleships. For all other ships, the downsides will vastly outweigh the benefits.

Any ship that needs to be fast (and pretty much anything below BS does) can no longer use buffer rigs, because that would contradict their main benefit. They also can't use the active-tank rigs because fitting a proper active tank would take slots away from the buffer tank they are still required to fit in order to survive. Basically, all you're doing with this change alone is to make fast ships weaker.

You need to explain what you're doing to all the other tanking styles, including what you're doing on the ship- and module side of the equation, before we can make any sense out of this particular change. On its own, it's rather nonsensical.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#74 - 2012-04-23 16:54:58 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
CCP Soundwave wrote:
corestwo wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.


Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.

Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard.


That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.


My post was a bit aggressive, yes...I edited it.

Taken alone, these changes suck, but we don't have the full picture. Things like capless boosters/reppers hinted at in entirely unofficial Chaos leaks and I think somewhat more officially at Fanfest would make this work better ("going fast" and "active tank" don't mix, both are heavily cap intensive). As is, however, we're left to judge this change on its own, and on its own it's found wanting.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#75 - 2012-04-23 16:57:28 UTC
Nerf to shield buffer kiting setups, I like.

There are a few ships for which active tanking is at least marginally viable (Vengeance, Sacrilege, Hawk, Stabber Fleet Issue, Cyclone, Myrmidon) but in all instances they either have to have an overwhelmingly huge active tank. An increase in speed of all ships "intended" for active tanking may be good, to be able to compensate for a possible lack in raw tank by using an afterburner and sig tanking. This works well on the Sacrilege and Vengeance presently, and would only work better if armor active tank rigs were changed to not reduce speed, and shield active tank rigs were changed to not bloat sig radius.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

Lelob
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#76 - 2012-04-23 16:59:19 UTC
This is a genuinely terrible idea.

For starters, you clearly do not understand active tanking if you think that resistance rigs are used only in passive tanking. Resist rigs are easily the most common rigs used while active tanking, as they increase the overall efficiency of your local reps vs damage taken. It honestly scares me that you do not understand this and you are trying to make this change. Whether it is a maelstorm, cyclone, brutix, myrmidon, merlin or what have you, every one of them will have at least 1 resistance rigs. (Usually em and thermal rigs for shield tanking while the brutix/myrm that armor tank will have an explosive rig, or kinetic if you expect to fight lots of drakes)

This will be a complete nerf to anything that is remotely nano. For shield tankers, and especially solo pvpers, the use of rigs that would decrease your speed in ships that work only because of their speeds just does not make sense. Nobody would want to put core defence field extenders on their ships anymore except in big, blobby fleet fights. You would be making core defence field extenders all but obsolete and would be enacting a huge nerf to an incredibly large amount of ship types that depend on these rigs.

It just blows my mind that you would even consider something so ********, let alone make a thread about it. Normally I would not use such language, but I cannot stress to you how much this is a pants-on-head-******** idea. I cannot even think of how to improve this post anymore I am so dumbstruck.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#77 - 2012-04-23 17:01:24 UTC
Should have formulated the original post more as a question than a statement, sorry for the confusion.


The point of posting this in "Feature & Ideas Discussion" is because it is a high level concept that was passed along, and that we wanted to discuss before doing anything with it as it has some repercussions.

This is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has been started on it yet. We don't want to repeat the problem that happened with booster changes during Crucible, thus the point of this is to involve player feedback earlier in the development process so we can filter points out before they make it to Singularity.


I will tweak the first post to reflect this.
Go2
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2012-04-23 17:01:52 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
corestwo wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.


Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.

Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard.


That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.


I agree. There's just a communication gap where there is legitimate confusion about what is being asked for. Are you asking for our input on a problem, are you asking for our ideas about a solution or are you informing us of a change you are going to make ? It was not clear from the post which it was.

Having said that, sorry for all the trolls.
BABARR
League of Non-Aligned Worlds
Snuffed Out
#79 - 2012-04-23 17:02:23 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
corestwo wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.


Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.

Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard.


That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.


No. It's amazing to see a dev proposing some balancing and saying "funny" things like "gallente are using their speed in pvp", we (the comunity) have the feeling some dev don't play the game they work in, and it's terrifing.

I'am ok for a "all ship nano" nerf, but we have to think about "why ppl fly nano" before.
I'am ok to give more love to active tanking, but we have to think about "why ppl prefer passive tank", and don't forget when you have a active tank ship, you can have PASSIVE rig like resist.

Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#80 - 2012-04-23 17:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahega Amielden
Quote:
Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.


So is speed. Speed and sig penalties are both harmful - welcome to rigs. The point is that rather than giving shield tanks the sig bloom penalty and armor tanks the speed penalty, you give passive tanks the speed penalty and active tanks the sig penalty.




I will say that this suggestion has some problems. Why are auxiliary nanobots going to noticeably increase your sig? Why is a shield extender going to slow you down?

This change homogenizes shield and armor tanks, which for awhile had notably different drawbacks. Armor tanks killed your speed/agility, and shield tanks killed your sig. One of the primary benefits of shield tanks is that they let you tank while going fast.

If you use the same logic as in the OP, which is that sig penalties are preferably to speed penalties, then this change is a blanket nerf to all shield tanks.

Fast ships generally need their cap for other things. If they run out of cap they can't go fast. More importantly, if you're cap intensive, you need your mids for cap mods...And if you want a ship to go fast, you shield tank.

Most damning of this idea is the fact that the Gallente blasterboat style of fighting just does not make any damn sense with active reps. The whole point of a blasterboat is to burn in range and melt your opponent's face off before he kills you...Combat with a blasterboat is over fast, one way or the other. This style of fighting does not in any way work with an active tank, whose effectiveness is directly proportional to the length of the fight


You need to reconsider your goals. If anything, it should be the "brick" races (Caldari and Amarr) that are good at sitting there and laughing at incoming damage. I would also encourage you to change any armor rep bonuses to either affect incoming remote reps as well, or change them to resist bonuses. Local active rep bonuses ensure that certain ships will never be useful beyond a small gang.

If you want to make active reps more useful, I'd take a look at the current proliferation of energy neuts. As it is, you see so many neuts (and thus so many things capable of shitting on active tanks) because they are the only worthwhile hislot module outside of weapons. Nos are decent except for their ridiculous fitting costs, using the launcher slots (if on a turret ship) or turret slots (if on a missileboat) will give you a negligable increase in DPS. What else are you going to fill the last hislot with. A salvager? A cloak?

By making neuts less attractive (either by nerfing them or making other options viable) you'd by extension boost active reps.