These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Inferno Armour Repairer?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2012-07-15 22:23:33 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:

As much like active shield tanking needed these ASB to make more ships come to the field and make it more viable for small scale pvp, active armor rep is in deep need of big changes to become a viable option.
It's not a matter of making them the same at all, and some should stop talking about Slaves because Crystals and Blue pills+natural regen.
Slaves are a very small game changer for smaller ships than capital size because price vs effectiveness, while the same is not true when it comes to Crystals+Blue pill+ASB+Shield boosting effectiveness mods that can make a single ship have a completely unbreakable tank in small engagements, or at least long enough to kill a lot of stuff.


I generally agree with your post, although, I don't think the 'completely unbreakable tank in small engagements' is actually conductive to small engagements at all.

Certainly, active armour tank does not need to be completely unbreakable in small engagements. It is a concept broken to hell, because the idea of two ships pressing 'keep at 500' and then playing the 'let's see who has more cap charges' game would make PVP worse, not better.

However, give me a 4-lowslot active tank worth a damn, which takes less grid then plating and doesn't nerf speed and you could find a purpose for that. It doesn't even need to permatank one high dps ship of the same class to be useful.
Jayrendo Karr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-07-15 23:21:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayrendo Karr
Tor Gungnir wrote:
Jayrendo Karr wrote:
Armor is meant to go in with high ehp to last and then rep the damage afterwards, armor is meant to passive tank more than active while shiel is supposed to be active (exceptions being ishukone ships which are made for passive tanking but have crap dps, also the drake)


I doubt that's how they are meant to be.

Just because it is the only thing that does work doesn't mean it is how it is supposed to work.

Why else would we have active Armour Modules?

True, but those are just my preferences for fittings. Also they should lower large t2 armor rep grid requirements a little bit.
Tor Gungnir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-07-16 09:11:15 UTC
Jayrendo Karr wrote:
Tor Gungnir wrote:
Jayrendo Karr wrote:
Armor is meant to go in with high ehp to last and then rep the damage afterwards, armor is meant to passive tank more than active while shiel is supposed to be active (exceptions being ishukone ships which are made for passive tanking but have crap dps, also the drake)


I doubt that's how they are meant to be.

Just because it is the only thing that does work doesn't mean it is how it is supposed to work.

Why else would we have active Armour Modules?

True, but those are just my preferences for fittings. Also they should lower large t2 armor rep grid requirements a little bit.


Not just your preference. In the Tournament you see Active Shield tanking (with ASBs) but never ever do you see an Armour Tanked ship get that green glow from an Armour Repairer.

Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you.
Robert Lefcourt
BigPoppaMonkeys
E.B.O.L.A.
#24 - 2012-07-16 13:29:07 UTC
Paikis wrote:

What has actually changed?


In the pre ASB days, there was an easy way to deal with those active shield tanks: Neut him, and he won't stand for long. They can now tank a ridiculous amount of damage for too long, and there's nothing you can do about it. I can understand people complaining about those modules. At the AT, only one ASB is allowed - that would be a good solution for me.


regards,

rob
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-07-16 15:26:23 UTC
Still feel that the Reactive Armor Hardener should be the key to the armor iteration this time round.

It’s main issue is especially with the new skill it is extremely cap intensive, if it were changed to run in a similar manner to the ASB with small cap charges with a run time of a couple of minutes (1min with level 5 skill) and again a 60sec reload then this may improve this module for smaller ships and at least make it viable for a pvp frig. You would of course have to have auto reload switched off to keep the module running rather than have it switch off and reset but at least at this point the mod has adapted and you are paying cap for a useful bonus.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#26 - 2012-07-16 16:22:39 UTC
Cpt Branko wrote:


The big issue is that, eg. 2 LARs consume over 3k more grid then two plates, not counting the grid spent on the injector. Two MARs and an injector take 1 more lowslot, one more midslot and the same amount of grid as one 1600mm plate based tank. Then, to add insult to injury, repair rigs reduce speed.

Don't even compare the cost of fitting a 2-midslot + 1 lowslot buffer shield tank, both in slots and fitting, to a dual-MAR tank.

That's why you see shield-gank Brutixes as the only viable Brutix setup, for instance, etc.


This right here.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#27 - 2012-07-16 17:27:45 UTC
I strongly dislike your idea. Why? Because CURRENT ITEMS should be BALANCED ON THEIR OWN rather than introducing totally new modules. Plus, before we introduce any new items, we now have to balance ASBs (or just remove them, which makes way more sense).

Balance active tanking, don't just introduce a bunch of new modules because CCP is too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to fix things.
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-07-16 18:32:16 UTC
Rather than new items introduced I'd prefer to see something like regenerative plating actually regenerate armor HP. Let it subvert capacitor regeneration or shield regeneration to power armor regeneration, but let it regenerate our bloody armor. Even if CCP makes it another one-per-ship module that has a 100% penalty to shield recharge while restoring armor HP at a flat, non-scaling (like shield and capacitor) percentage it would almost certainly be better than the current module.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#29 - 2012-07-16 18:45:12 UTC
Eternal Error wrote:
I strongly dislike your idea. Why? Because CURRENT ITEMS should be BALANCED ON THEIR OWN rather than introducing totally new modules. Plus, before we introduce any new items, we now have to balance ASBs (or just remove them, which makes way more sense).

Balance active tanking, don't just introduce a bunch of new modules because CCP is too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to fix things.

Couldn't have put it better myself

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Bubanni
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-07-16 22:09:07 UTC
I have idea for the new reactive armor mod... make it give a armor regen also... it uses cap anyway so it won't be passive... make it a % of total armor, but don't allow it on capital ships...(don't say it will be overpowered, because that really depends on the %, even on insane buffer tanks) CCP could balance that by using the best passive armor tank they can, and only give it a % that would put it within reasonable parameters say a 80000 armor points could get 400 hp sec with it... or something?

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-07-16 22:30:41 UTC
Shereza wrote:
Rather than new items introduced I'd prefer to see something like regenerative plating actually regenerate armor HP. Let it subvert capacitor regeneration or shield regeneration to power armor regeneration, but let it regenerate our bloody armor. Even if CCP makes it another one-per-ship module that has a 100% penalty to shield recharge while restoring armor HP at a flat, non-scaling (like shield and capacitor) percentage it would almost certainly be better than the current module.


Regenerative plating no longer exists. It's called "Layered Plating" now. Though, when it was called regenerative, armour regen was what I wanted from it.


Eternal Error wrote:
I strongly dislike your idea. Why? Because CURRENT ITEMS should be BALANCED ON THEIR OWN rather than introducing totally new modules. Plus, before we introduce any new items, we now have to balance ASBs (or just remove them, which makes way more sense).

Balance active tanking, don't just introduce a bunch of new modules because CCP is too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to fix things.



Active tanking wasn't that unbalanced before ASB's. It was just a little too weak before gang links and implants were applied. ASB's are a very good idea for an active tank module. It is utterly dependent on cap boosters and has a reload timer that makes up for the excellent boost it offers. I have no real issues with it.

The only good idea for ASB's I've heard is that booster size should affect shield boost amount.
Drew Solaert
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-07-17 00:17:46 UTC
I don't see an armour one as needed. Dual Rep/Single Rep is just fine and has more staying power, given its not 60 seconds between cap booster reloads, not to mention the ships you traditionally see armour reps on tend to have a beefier cap than their shield partners.
Also with the armour cycle time being slower and the hp gain a lot higher, adding more hp and zero cap would just be plain feckin' broken.

I lied :o
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#33 - 2012-07-17 05:29:55 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:



Eternal Error wrote:
I strongly dislike your idea. Why? Because CURRENT ITEMS should be BALANCED ON THEIR OWN rather than introducing totally new modules. Plus, before we introduce any new items, we now have to balance ASBs (or just remove them, which makes way more sense).

Balance active tanking, don't just introduce a bunch of new modules because CCP is too lazy or too stupid to figure out how to fix things.



Active tanking wasn't that unbalanced before ASB's. It was just a little too weak before gang links and implants were applied. ASB's are a very good idea for an active tank module. It is utterly dependent on cap boosters and has a reload timer that makes up for the excellent boost it offers. I have no real issues with it.

notsureifsrs
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-07-17 08:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Branko
Spugg Galdon wrote:

Active tanking wasn't that unbalanced before ASB's.


What.

Yes, that's why there were active tanked Cyclones, Sleipnirs and Maelstroms but even many active armour bonus ships like Brutix, Astarte, Myrmidon even were flown with shield buffer. Shield active tanking was much better then armour active tanking, especially on sub-BS hulls, even before ASB.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#35 - 2012-07-17 08:02:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Quote:
Yes, that's why there were active tanked Cyclones, Sleipnirs and Maelstroms


I think the reason why these work is that an oversized shield booster + the ship's boost amount bonus gives a very respectable tank (+ being minmatar allows them to oversize easily due to generous fitting requirements of autocannons), whereas the ships with an active armor tank need 2x repairers to get a reliable active tank.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-07-17 08:10:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Yea I checked to make sure, the Cyclone tanks a lot better using the same amount of slots as the Brutix.

4 slot shield tank Cyclone

Damage Control II

Large Shield Booster II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II


Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I

This tanks 296 omni dps.



Brutix 4 slot armor tank

Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II

Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800

Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I

This only tanks 169 omni dps.
Cpt Branko
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-07-17 08:14:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Branko
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Quote:
Yes, that's why there were active tanked Cyclones, Sleipnirs and Maelstroms


I think the reason why these work is that an oversized shield booster + the ship's boost amount bonus gives a very respectable tank (+ being minmatar allows them to oversize easily due to generous fitting requirements of autocannons), whereas the ships with an active armor tank need 2x repairers to get a reliable active tank.


Essentially, yes.

On a Minmatar ship fitting an active shield tank and guns and damage mods and MWD and cap booster works, so the ships also work as a result. However, even on Minmatar ships which have generally lots of fitting space, active armour just doesn't fit without downgrading guns even on ships which have slot layouts suggesting that an armour tank should be possible, too, and then you run into the problem of not enough lows for damage mods and such, since 2 repairers are a must.

It's even worse for other races which have a harder time fitting top tier guns and end up in shield buffer fits because shield buffer simply takes the least amount of fitting space.
Arnst Atram
Downgraded Avengers
Hard Knocks Citizens
#38 - 2012-07-17 08:21:43 UTC
I think it'd be better to just continue with the line of thought that Armour = Buffer instead. Reps are reps. If you try to make Armour and Shield both Active, one will be better than the other, regardless of how much you try to balance them, and the other will be "useless".

How about a module that boosts all your resistances significantly for a large cap cost. The idea being it synergizes with the backloaded reps of Armour Logis.
You get Yellow boxed, broadcast, and turn on this hardener for a few cycles giving you a large but short lived boost in EHP as the reps begin to be applied, afterwards you go back to normal.

Of course that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure people could pick plenty of things that are wrong with it.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#39 - 2012-07-17 09:01:08 UTC
Those saying active armour tank should suck cause shiled is supposed to be better at it (!?) might as well continue their universal wisdom and declare that missiles are excessive since, you know, they DEAL DAMAGE.

Why have multiple weapon systems doing essentially the same QuestionQuestionQuestion Apparently, missiles (or hybrids or lasers) should be removed, as, you know,

Quote:
one will be better than the other, regardless of how much you try to balance them, and the other will be "useless".


LOL

ffs, forums are even more ******** than they used to be.

In fact, there are NO reasons to avoid making BOTH active armour and active shield tanking EQUALLY VIABLE.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#40 - 2012-07-17 09:06:04 UTC
Cpt Branko wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Quote:
Yes, that's why there were active tanked Cyclones, Sleipnirs and Maelstroms


I think the reason why these work is that an oversized shield booster + the ship's boost amount bonus gives a very respectable tank (+ being minmatar allows them to oversize easily due to generous fitting requirements of autocannons), whereas the ships with an active armor tank need 2x repairers to get a reliable active tank.


Essentially, yes.

On a Minmatar ship fitting an active shield tank and guns and damage mods and MWD and cap booster works, so the ships also work as a result. However, even on Minmatar ships which have generally lots of fitting space, active armour just doesn't fit without downgrading guns even on ships which have slot layouts suggesting that an armour tank should be possible, too, and then you run into the problem of not enough lows for damage mods and such, since 2 repairers are a must.

It's even worse for other races which have a harder time fitting top tier guns and end up in shield buffer fits because shield buffer simply takes the least amount of fitting space.

Yeah, but let us not forget capless weapons.

Abso and Sleipnir both have basically the same capacitor (sheer volume is compensated by recharge time, plus both run cap boosters anyway), but shooting lasers alone require as much cap as constant MWDing around! That's a lot!

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