These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

What do you think CCPs plans for armor and shield tanking are?

Author
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#1 - 2012-08-24 22:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Thought that was an interesting question - I have my opinion on the issue but don't want to influence the thread to much from the get-go.

However, with the introduction of ASBs and ARSHs respectively, CCP obviously don't want to equalize, but further diverge them.

I have never read or heard anything clear about their goal for each tanking type, though.


So thoughts what they shoiuld be, what CCP should aim for, snippets of information? Post them here.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Alara IonStorm
#2 - 2012-08-24 22:25:52 UTC
Here is a quote on tanking from CCP Fozzie in case you haven't seen it.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Discussion of tanking imbalances:
So some people have been asking if we care about some of the design problems inherent in our current tanking situation, and if we're going to redesign these ships to compensate for these problems.
Firstly, we are very aware of the many problems we're facing in tanking design at the moment. The balance between active and passive tanks, and between armor and shield (and honour) tanking are both in need of work. ASBs have made parts of this problem better (adding new interesting gameplay and making "active" tanking more popular) while making other parts worse (too good in many circumstances, and skewing the meta further towards shield). Armor and shield tanking balance suffers because mass (and velocity) penalties are far more severe than signature radius penalties in most circumstances, and to a lesser extent because of the difference between shield hitting at the start of a cycle and armor hitting at the end. This is especially harmful for active tanking Gallente blaster ships that need that speed to get within range.
These problems are real and we are working on them, but the solution isn't to skew the ships themselves too far in the opposite direction. Our goals are to hit the problems at their source.
That being said there may be things we end up doing to these ships to help smooth things out, such as reducing cycle times and/or tweaking the mass of the armor tankers down a bit. We're going to keep working on these ships up to and beyond release in the Winter.

Large Collidable Object
morons.
#3 - 2012-08-24 23:03:39 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Here is a quote on tanking from CCP Fozzie in case you haven't seen it.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Discussion of tanking imbalances:
So some people have been asking if we care about some of the design problems inherent in our current tanking situation, and if we're going to redesign these ships to compensate for these problems.
Firstly, we are very aware of the many problems we're facing in tanking design at the moment. The balance between active and passive tanks, and between armor and shield (and honour) tanking are both in need of work. ASBs have made parts of this problem better (adding new interesting gameplay and making "active" tanking more popular) while making other parts worse (too good in many circumstances, and skewing the meta further towards shield). Armor and shield tanking balance suffers because mass (and velocity) penalties are far more severe than signature radius penalties in most circumstances, and to a lesser extent because of the difference between shield hitting at the start of a cycle and armor hitting at the end. This is especially harmful for active tanking Gallente blaster ships that need that speed to get within range.
These problems are real and we are working on them, but the solution isn't to skew the ships themselves too far in the opposite direction. Our goals are to hit the problems at their source.
That being said there may be things we end up doing to these ships to help smooth things out, such as reducing cycle times and/or tweaking the mass of the armor tankers down a bit. We're going to keep working on these ships up to and beyond release in the Winter.



Thanks - actually I've missed that post. Quite interesting read although I've never perceived the mods hitting times as much of a problem personally.

However CCP have to be careful with this one - e.g. regarding the Incursus, it was obviously balanced towards current mechanics as it tanks pretty fine - reducing cycle times may imbalance it.

Agree on the mass issue - especially rig penalties - aside from ASBs and ARSCHs being tweaked.

(to those getting it: that was not a freudian slip).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#4 - 2012-08-25 05:26:33 UTC
There is a very simple fix here. Change the Rig skills to reduce penalties by 20% per level. That would remove penalties on any rigs you chose to train to V. Armor ships would retain their HP advantage without being slowed down so much, and shield ships would retain their speed advantage without having a signature radius the size of a small moon.

Penalties from other modules should remain.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#5 - 2012-08-25 05:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
I think what they should have done was introduce ASBs as armor modules. Yes, we'd still have an Exile + Legion problem but we wouldn't have crystals on top of it. Besides, I ******* hate crystals and I'd love an excuse to let my speed implants get some use. :)

-Liang

Ed: Also, oversized mods wouldn't be as much of a pain in the ass.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Lili Lu
#6 - 2012-08-25 13:31:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Liang Nuren wrote:
I think what they should have done was introduce ASBs as armor modules. Yes, we'd still have an Exile + Legion problem but we wouldn't have crystals on top of it. Besides, I ******* hate crystals and I'd love an excuse to let my speed implants get some use. :)

-Liang

Ed: Also, oversized mods wouldn't be as much of a pain in the ass.

I posted the same observation in a thread shortly after the ASBs and AAHs were announced. It's almost like they got them backward. Active shield tanking was already viable with some pimping and implants. Active armor tanking was not except for some docking games in a myrm or hype.

I think one reason they went with ASB is that the coding appears to rule out ammo for low slot modules. And they apparently thought the AAH would help the armor buffer but speed penalized oh crap can't get in range . . . problem. It doesn't as it does not provide enough of a buffer and it has other problems with fitting and cap use to be used on frigs through BSs.

They could instead be trying something like buffing the regenerative membrane. If it was altered to be like a plate and give a whole number bonus that might be something less than a small plate plus a percentage as well (plus a very slow actual armor regen for later ss'd self healing) it might see use toward overcoming the armor penalties syndrome.

Regardless, they appear to be cogniscent of the tanking disparity problems finally. They had better move somewhat swiftly as armor tanking in small through even large ships is becoming much less seen with the arrival of the ASBs and the ongoing underlying problems of penalties to mobility and reps landing at end of a too long cycle with local and remote armor reps.

edit- also unfortunately they appear to experimenting with upping the armor rep bonus to 10% on some gallente hulls. It will help and already does help the incusus for pve. But, this will not help active armor for pvp. It does not address the underlying problems with active armor mod stats and fittings and mechanics.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the buffer and remote rep paradigm for either tanking type. It does promote group play. ASBs were a mistake imo.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-08-25 13:36:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrett
I dont mind that there are differences between the two tank types. In fact, I think its cool. I think CCP is on the right track with ASB (but small nerf mentioned below). They need to tweak the armor ones though.

So keeping with the theme of shield = light/skirmish and armor = heavy/endurance, make changes something like:

1. Decrease cap usage of RAH and increase the amount/speed at which it shifts. I like the idea behind this module, but it's too slow and cap hungry to be of much use now. There is no reason to use it over a second EANM right now, and little to use it over a third. These changes will make armor tanks stronger the longer the fight goes. Endurance.

2. Change the armor rig penalties to something else. Sig radius would be ok. This is just a giant penalty to Gallente ships.

3. Keep it so armor still needs to rely on a separate cap booster module. But significantly reduce the amount of cap they use (like half). This makes armor more cap friendly to allow for longer endurance, easier use of neuts, more resistance to neuts, and helps with the fact that traditional armor races use blasters and lasers. Endurance.

4. Increase the length of time armor mods can over heat or have higher module hit points, or reduce the amount of heat damage they cause. Endurance.

5. Reduce the fitting requirements slightly (allows for fitting of additional reps/cap boosters/larger weapons/plates). Heavy.

6. Increase the rep amounts or speed slightly - not on par with ASBs - but more than now. OR, increase the amount of benefit you get from overheating, and allow them to overheat for longer. I can see the need for double rep setups - having to fit triple reps is kinda silly though. Heavy/Endurance.

So, the above changes would make armor ships be a bit hardier, more resistant to neuting/better able to use neuts, fit heavier weapons and have longer 'staying power' with increased overheating ability. It also makes sense because the traditional armor races use the two most cap hungry weapons.

7. For shield - I like ASB, but the dual oversized setups are kinda crazy. So to reduce (but not eliminate) those options - increase the fitting requirements of ASB slightly so you REALLY have to gimp your fit (smaller weapons, less nos/neut or more fitting mods) to fit 2 of them. I think that would go a long way to balance the dual oversize fits we are seeing. If you want to make something crazy with an obscene tank - you still can - but good luck fitting weapons to keep you in your normal 'DPS class'. Would reduce their abilities to fit full-size nos/nets too - again keeping with the reduced endurance but skirmish mentality.

I dunno - just some ideas. I like the differences between tank styles - but they need to be balanced now.

Shield would continue to be the quick strike race but still have a good active tank option. Armor would be the heavies with longer staying power.

I am just glad CCP has commented on the issue finally. Sounds like they are working on it. Go go CCP.

Edit: autocorrect sucks.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!

Large Collidable Object
morons.
#8 - 2012-08-25 14:04:50 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
I think what they should have done was introduce ASBs as armor modules. Yes, we'd still have an Exile + Legion problem but we wouldn't have crystals on top of it. Besides, I ******* hate crystals and I'd love an excuse to let my speed implants get some use. :)

-Liang

Ed: Also, oversized mods wouldn't be as much of a pain in the ass.



Yes - the fact they didn't introduce ASBs as an armor tanking module led me to believe they wanted to move them further apart from each other.

As Lili said, active shield burst tanking was viable before the introduction of ASBs, whereas active armor tanking only was on some few select bonused fits in certain situation and with gimmick fits, so armor tanking would have been in dire need of a module like that whereas shield tanking wasn't.



Lili Lu wrote:

edit- also unfortunately they appear to experimenting with upping the armor rep bonus to 10% on some gallente hulls. It will help and already does help the incusus for pve. But, this will not help active armor for pvp. It does not address the underlying problems with active armor mod stats and fittings and mechanics.



The bigger problem I see with that is if they want to tackle the peoblems with armor tanking at their root (from my understanding that would be a rework of armor rep and rig stats), these ships will need to be readjusted or end up OP. On a side note, I actually found a dualrep incursus to be remotely viable in pvp and killed things using it.

Imho, tanking styles should keep their unique flavour, but under current mechanics, that would mean armor = immobile EHP+logistics blobfests (a few exceptions aside) and shield = everything else.

Some very nice suggestions from Hrett btw.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-08-25 14:06:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
1. CCP will halve the cycle time of remote reps and doubling the cycle time of remote shield transfers while maintaing their healing per second.

I'm not sure if this will be enough. If not they'll have to be homogenized.

2. CCP will introduce low impact penalties for plates and armor rigs or remove penalties from all rigs at skill level V. Reason being, the community is unwilling to accept meaningful penalties for shield rigs and extenders.

An example of meaningful penalty for shield tanking mods could be a max cap reduction. Large enough to make a cap injector mandatory for fits that employ high cap usage mods such as the MWD, energy neutralizers, etc. Large enough to guarantee that shield fits will lose in capacitor warfare against armor ships when equivalent fits are used.


3. CCP will make fitting oversized shield boosters a thing of the past or significantly reduce fitting requirements for armor repairers while increasing their healing per second.


4. CCP will limit ASBs to one per ship.

If they have guts they'll instead add a low slot cap injector and remove ASBs (one can dream, right?)


These would make a lot of sense, but I don't expect CCP to make sensible changes in this area after the RAH and ASB.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#10 - 2012-08-25 14:50:14 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
1. CCP will halve the cycle time of remote reps and doubling the cycle time of remote shield transfers while maintaing their healing per second.

I'm not sure if this will be enough. If not they'll have to be homogenized.

2. CCP will introduce low impact penalties for plates and armor rigs or remove penalties from all rigs at skill level V. Reason being, the community is unwilling to accept meaningful penalties for shield rigs and extenders.

An example of meaningful penalty for shield tanking mods could be a max cap reduction. Large enough to make a cap injector mandatory for fits that employ high cap usage mods such as the MWD, energy neutralizers, etc. Large enough to guarantee that shield fits will lose in capacitor warfare against armor ships when equivalent fits are used.


3. CCP will make fitting oversized shield boosters a thing of the past or significantly reduce fitting requirements for armor repairers while increasing their healing per second.


4. CCP will limit ASBs to one per ship.

If they have guts they'll instead add a low slot cap injector and remove ASBs (one can dream, right?)


These would make a lot of sense, but I don't expect CCP to make sensible changes in this area after the RAH and ASB.


Somebody can't fly shield ships.

Your "suggestions" basically amount to the following:
1. Buff remote armor reps, nerf shield transfers.
2. Remove penalties from armor tanking rigs or cripple shield tanking ships with rig penalties.
3. Remove the oversized shield reps, but no mention of removing the 1600mm armor plates
4. Limit or outright remove ASBs.

Typical knee-jerk response from someone only looking at one facet of tanking and yelling "not fair!"
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-08-25 15:02:15 UTC
Paikis wrote:

Somebody can't fly shield ships.

Your "suggestions" basically amount to the following:
1. Buff remote armor reps, nerf shield transfers.
2. Remove penalties from armor tanking rigs or cripple shield tanking ships with rig penalties.
3. Remove the oversized shield reps, but no mention of removing the 1600mm armor plates
4. Limit or outright remove ASBs.

Typical knee-jerk response from someone only looking at one facet of tanking and yelling "not fair!"


You seem to be pretty clueless about what's balanced and what isn't.
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#12 - 2012-08-25 15:06:58 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
1. CCP will halve the cycle time of remote reps and doubling the cycle time of remote shield transfers while maintaing their healing per second.

I'm not sure if this will be enough. If not they'll have to be homogenized.

2. CCP will introduce low impact penalties for plates and armor rigs or remove penalties from all rigs at skill level V. Reason being, the community is unwilling to accept meaningful penalties for shield rigs and extenders.

An example of meaningful penalty for shield tanking mods could be a max cap reduction. Large enough to make a cap injector mandatory for fits that employ high cap usage mods such as the MWD, energy neutralizers, etc. Large enough to guarantee that shield fits will lose in capacitor warfare against armor ships when equivalent fits are used.


3. CCP will make fitting oversized shield boosters a thing of the past or significantly reduce fitting requirements for armor repairers while increasing their healing per second.


4. CCP will limit ASBs to one per ship.

If they have guts they'll instead add a low slot cap injector and remove ASBs (one can dream, right?)


These would make a lot of sense, but I don't expect CCP to make sensible changes in this area after the RAH and ASB.


Somebody can't fly shield ships.

Your "suggestions" basically amount to the following:
1. Buff remote armor reps, nerf shield transfers.
2. Remove penalties from armor tanking rigs or cripple shield tanking ships with rig penalties.
3. Remove the oversized shield reps, but no mention of removing the 1600mm armor plates
4. Limit or outright remove ASBs.

Typical knee-jerk response from someone only looking at one facet of tanking and yelling "not fair!"


1. you can barely call it a buff. armor reps still wouldn't rep at the beginning of cycle and rep amout would be the same.
2. He didn't say 'remove penalties from armor tanking rigs'. Only decrease penalties, which would bring it inline with shield penalties.. which is something noone really cares about.
3. You can't really compare oversized shield booster (with cap booster) with 1600 plate. Oversized SB with cap injectors = asb
4. Looks like you're the only one thinking asb are balanced. (looks at CCP Fozzie 's quote)
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2012-08-25 15:54:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
nahjustwarpin wrote:

2. He didn't say 'remove penalties from armor tanking rigs'. Only decrease penalties, which would bring it inline with shield penalties.. which is something noone really cares about.


Actually I'm supporting Alara Ionstorm's idea of changing all rig skills to -20% penalty per level (it was him/her to first suggest this). I think though that CCP will prefer to keep penalties as a way to differentiate these modules, and therefore simply make them more forgiving.

It's an act of homogenization, but it's something everyone could accept. I doubt that shield tankers would accept a high impact penalty on their extenders and rigs as solution to bring them in line with their armor equivalents. The reply of Paikis shows this very well.

nahjustwarpin wrote:
3. You can't really compare oversized shield booster (with cap booster) with 1600 plate. Oversized SB with cap injectors = asb


Right, it doesn't make any sense to compare active tanking to buffer tanking. Anyway, this is why oversized SBs and ASBs stick out. In terms of healing per second:

2x medium reps = LSB + boost amp

The problem is that for example a Cyclone can fit an XL shield booster + boost amp because of the low fitting requirements. That combo gives 120% more healing per second compared to 2x medium reps.

Add the ASB and active shield tanking has a ridiculous advantage. That's why people are now fitting ASBs to the Myrmidon.



Buffer fits for comparison:

Prophecy with 1600mm Steel Plate II, 2x EANM II, 1x DCU II: 68k HP
Ferox with LSE II, 2x Invul. Field II, 1x DCU: 57k HP (64k overheated)

And the reason why armor has higher buffer is precisely because armor reps do not land instantly. If reps are changed to land instantly then this might have to be looked at. Then again, shields regenerate.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-08-25 16:18:28 UTC
nahjustwarpin wrote:

3. You can't really compare oversized shield booster (with cap booster) with 1600 plate. Oversized SB with cap injectors = asb
)



Whether you like it or not, that is the comparison because that is the balance factor. Shields get an oversized active module, armor gets an oversized buffer module.

Just like shields get passive recharge while armor gets higher base resists.

Just like shields have higher sig and armor has lower velocity.

And so on with a dozen other factors that make the two different.

Argue whether the numbers are right for each if you want, but don't argue the fundamental design because it's highly unlikely that will change.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2012-08-25 16:52:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Whether you like it or not, that is the comparison because that is the balance factor. Shields get an oversized active module, armor gets an oversized buffer module.


What do you propose to balance active shield tanking with active armor tanking? Currently the situation is as follows:

2x Medium Armor Repairer: 71 raw HPS

LSB II + Boost Amp II: 81 raw HPS

XLSB II + Boost Amp II: 163 raw HPS

According to your logic, it is fine if active shield tanking is slightly better because buffer armor fits have slightly more HP than buffer shield fits.

The discrepancy in active tanking capabilities is anything but slight though as you can see from the numbers above.

How do you propose to solve this without either
a) massive buffs to armor repairers
b) disallowing oversized shield boosters? (as you can see, shield boosting already has the advantage even without oversizing)
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#16 - 2012-08-25 16:57:52 UTC
i think CCP will introduce a ASB like module which uses no cap or booster at all to buff shields a bit more

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#17 - 2012-08-25 17:22:59 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
1. CCP will halve the cycle time of remote reps and doubling the cycle time of remote shield transfers while maintaing their healing per second.

I'm not sure if this will be enough. If not they'll have to be homogenized.

2. CCP will introduce low impact penalties for plates and armor rigs or remove penalties from all rigs at skill level V. Reason being, the community is unwilling to accept meaningful penalties for shield rigs and extenders.

An example of meaningful penalty for shield tanking mods could be a max cap reduction. Large enough to make a cap injector mandatory for fits that employ high cap usage mods such as the MWD, energy neutralizers, etc. Large enough to guarantee that shield fits will lose in capacitor warfare against armor ships when equivalent fits are used.


3. CCP will make fitting oversized shield boosters a thing of the past or significantly reduce fitting requirements for armor repairers while increasing their healing per second.

4. CCP will limit ASBs to one per ship.

If they have guts they'll instead add a low slot cap injector and remove ASBs (one can dream, right?)

These would make a lot of sense, but I don't expect CCP to make sensible changes in this area after the RAH and ASB.


1. This makes sense, really. I don't know if it'll be 1/2, but they will almost certainly shorten the time between rep and application. I doubt they'll homogenize it.
2. I doubt that very much. The argument about people "accepting penalties" is absolutely bunk. The thing about it is that sig is a significant penalty already. People just don't realize it because they think tracking and sig don't matter. Lol
3. I really doubt they're going to nerf "oversized" shield boosters any more than they're going to nerf "oversized" armor plates. They may modify armor rep fittings, but until they boost the modules such that you don't require a 12 slot deadspace tank to match a 7 slot T2 shield tank it won't really matter. Slots are vitally important, and combining 2 historic slots into one is one of the big reasons ASBs have taken off.
4. Maybe. I'd rather see it be a soft limit than a hard limit.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#18 - 2012-08-25 17:24:33 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Whether you like it or not, that is the comparison because that is the balance factor. Shields get an oversized active module, armor gets an oversized buffer module.


What do you propose to balance active shield tanking with active armor tanking? Currently the situation is as follows:

2x Medium Armor Repairer: 71 raw HPS

LSB II + Boost Amp II: 81 raw HPS

XLSB II + Boost Amp II: 163 raw HPS

According to your logic, it is fine if active shield tanking is slightly better because buffer armor fits have slightly more HP than buffer shield fits.

The discrepancy in active tanking capabilities is anything but slight though as you can see from the numbers above.

How do you propose to solve this without either
a) massive buffs to armor repairers
b) disallowing oversized shield boosters? (as you can see, shield boosting already has the advantage even without oversizing)


Start by making that XLSB take capacitor. The traditional weakness of oversized shield booster fits have been their extreme cap instability.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#19 - 2012-08-25 17:37:39 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
The thing about it is that sig is a significant penalty already. People just don't realize it because they think tracking and sig don't matter. Lol


Oh I think they realize this, but you don't seem to realize that a speed penalty makes it easier for your opponent to track you just like a sig radius increase does...
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#20 - 2012-08-25 17:41:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
The thing about it is that sig is a significant penalty already. People just don't realize it because they think tracking and sig don't matter. Lol


Oh I think they realize this, but you don't seem to realize that a speed penalty makes it easier for your opponent to track you just like a sig radius increase does...


Sig Radius affects:
- How much damage you take

Velocity affects:
- How much damage you take
- How fast you get into range
- How fast you get out of trouble
- Likelihood of catching a kiting ship

While velocity is a much stronger penalty, you shouldn't say that people are unwilling to accept significant shield penalties. They have one, even if most people don't realize it.

-Liang

Ed: And just to be clear, I wasn't trying to say that velocity wasn't a significant penalty. Just that sig was one. :)

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

123Next pageLast page