These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make armor reps land at the start of the cycle
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tomytronic
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-08-11 20:04:01 UTC
One of the key differences between armor and shield doctrines is that logistics work differently in one important way: armor reps land at the end of the cycle, shield reps at the start. Due to the nature of large fleet fights, alpha and reactive repping, shield fleets are often the favourite of serious alliances cf. the tengu, drake and maelstrom fleets of the CFC or the rokhfleets of the HBC/SoCo.

The advantage of shield logistics is that with the reps landing at the start of the cycle, repping can be used to quickly mitigate much alpha and with good logistics and broadcasting, survivability increases dramatically. With an armor doctrine however, the reps land at the end of the cycle and in heavy TiDi situations, the alpha can often come in before the reps have landed meaning that the repairs are fighting against the curve of damage instead of being on top of it as with a shield doctrine.

I propose a simple change that would make armor properly viable once again in large fleet fights - fleet fights that don't rely on panic-geddons or cap-chaining and incredibly vulnerable guardians - and that change is this: make armor reps land at the start of the cycle just like shield reps.

The seemingly small difference between repping styles has drastic effects on the current meta and a change to the repping cycle would even the playing field allowing the potential for armor doctrines to work their way back into the mainstream again. Many people miss the old days of the glorious armorfleets slugging it out with each other and a return to this would help liven up the meta and allow other more creative doctrines to step up. Maybe Gallente could get a true role on the battlefield again. Maybe not, CCP aren't miracle workers.

Either way, a simple change like this should be discussed and weighed for its pros and cons. Difference is valuable and interesting yes, but the current meta is suffering because of it and it could be time to look at this difference and see if it is really to the benefit of all players and all ships.

NB: the alternative should also be looked at, making shield reps land at the end of the cycle like armor reps. I feel one works better with the game design however, and so my own proposal would be for reps at the start in both cases.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-08-11 20:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
How about remote armor reps cycle faster and shield transporters cycle slower?

Edit: but yea, that would give shield transfers even better anti-alpha capabilities.
Sigras
Conglomo
#3 - 2012-08-11 20:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
^^ this

please dont turn armor reps into shield reps . . .

If you halved the amount that armor reps give, halved their cycle time and cap usage then doubled the cap usage cycle time and rep amount of the shield reps, it would change the strategys drastically.

Yes, that would give shield ships better anti alpha capabilities, but confusing logistics by pumping one volley into one guy then DPSing down another would be far more effective with a slower cycle time.

Armor would then still have the disadvantage of repping at the end of the cycle, but it could react to a dynamic changing battlefield, if it could switch targets every 2.25 seconds? that would be amazing.

Shield would end up with a massive rep all at once, but could only switch targets every 10 seconds, this would allow fleets to use tactics to nullify the enemy logistics, but not make it easier or harder outright
Esaf Itog
Faulcon de Lazy
#4 - 2012-08-11 20:49:06 UTC
From what I can tell this thread has been done before and the usual thing said is that tanking styles are different so 'deal with it', but you did raise good points about alpha strikes causing problems for armour tanking vessels.

My actual feelings on the subject are that armour reps should give a gradual increase in hp over the course of the cycle. Perhaps have it so that the hp/s starts low, increases to a peak mid-cycle and then returns to its low point at the end of the cycle. No particular reason, I just like the way I see it working in game.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#5 - 2012-08-12 05:17:55 UTC
How about shortening cycle times and decreasing rep amount and cap cost accordingly.

Armor repairers will be more of a gradual repair, it repairs bit by bit, rather than big chunks at a time. Armor repairers will still rep at the end of the cycle, but will be faster.

This will keep armor as armor and shield as shield
Kitt JT
True North.
#6 - 2012-08-12 07:26:31 UTC
I think you're missing the fact that armour tanks need to devote less slots to a buffer tank in a fleet fight than armour ones do.

The big difference are the two buffer mods. An LSE II gives +2625 shield hp.
A 1600 RT gives +4200 armour hp.

Shield and armour tanking are different. They both have benefits and weaknesses. In this case, armour tankers can fit more tank for less slots, thus being able to last longer without reps, and shield tankers have reps land earlier, making up for the fact that they get less overall HP.

Similarly, armour logi get help in that their bud's shields have to be worn down, giving them added reaction time. In larger, more chaotic fleets, it helps them determine who NEEDS reps, and who are just panicking and hit broadcast. See a target in mid-low shields, and you rep him. Target at full shields... no reps (unless there's not anyone else being shot).

Shield logi get no such assistance. The first few eager enemies weapons will look like a tiny sliver (easily bomb damage or smartbomb damage) and once there's enough to differentiate, its probably too late.

TL;DR

NO