These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Brutix/Myrm rep bonus

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#21 - 2013-06-16 20:39:19 UTC
As a personal opinion, actively repairing armor is flawed on the basis of it's concept. We receive repair at the end of the cycle, with extensive cap usage.

When the cap usage is tied with Amarr, active armor rep becomes a death knell.

I would like to see the rep hit far more often at less per cycle, equaling the current rep rate overall. I know this would be hard on servers, but it would mean our penalty for getting rep'd late would be less significant.

While I have no input for Gallente, seeing the few Amarr ships that have active rep bonuses converted to reduced cap bonuses could significantly add to the life of those ships, as it then adds to our capability to do other things.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#22 - 2013-06-17 07:51:05 UTC
Ruze wrote:
As a personal opinion, actively repairing armor is flawed on the basis of it's concept. We receive repair at the end of the cycle, with extensive cap usage.

When the cap usage is tied with Amarr, active armor rep becomes a death knell.

I would like to see the rep hit far more often at less per cycle, equaling the current rep rate overall. I know this would be hard on servers, but it would mean our penalty for getting rep'd late would be less significant.

While I have no input for Gallente, seeing the few Amarr ships that have active rep bonuses converted to reduced cap bonuses could significantly add to the life of those ships, as it then adds to our capability to do other things.


Gallente suffer from cap issues with reps just as much to be fair, but in any fight where local reps will make a difference the numbers are generally small enough that the fight wouldn't last for more than the few minutes of cap boosters you'd have in your holds. On that front the Amarr ships have a slight advantage as the ammo takes up virtually no cargo space compared to the Gallente ships. In the end, it pans out pretty even for the 2 races.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#23 - 2013-06-17 08:57:45 UTC
Active tanking cannot be balanced until links are nerfed

As it is if they buff active tanking, with links it becomes OP as ****.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-06-17 10:26:02 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.



the problem are in the armor repairer themselves. They are still too weak for PVP on most ships. 1 is not enough and 2 is too hard to fit and use. Even the anciliary one is a REALLLY WEAK module.

Increase the cycle time by 25% of anciliary ones and increase the rep ammount by 50% and then you MIGHT see those ships.. using ARMOR tank.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#25 - 2013-06-17 12:25:22 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
The issue is the armour repping modules rather than the bonus as Cyclone and shield ship have the same bonus difference being its easier to use ASB's and they are more powerful whilst using less slots and the no cap usage helps.
That's because somebody with no sense of game balance designed the ASB. Then they realized how badly they f'd-up and went out and hired some people who actually could create reasonably balanced mods & ships. But instead of going back and fixing their shiite mistake, the powers that be decided (as always) to not admit their mistake and try covering it up by nerfing other stuff (active hardeners). Or at least that's my tinfoil hat theory. Sad part is, it's probably dead-on.

The AAR is not a bad mod as it is now. In fact, it's actually fairly good for what it does. The problem is that ASBs are just vastly superior and we use those as the baseline for comparison.

As for the OP. The bonus works pretty well on the Myrm. It's fantastic for taking on small groups. Never had much luck with it on the Brutix (or the CSs) though. Could probably go with a different bonus for those.


Hasn,t it occured to anyone that the ASB should be the one getting restrictions, as the AAR is pretty efficient at what it does. This is just pushing more power creep...
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#26 - 2013-06-17 14:10:54 UTC
The AAR is pretty efficient - and very slow. I understand that power creep is bad, but perhaps armor tanking is due for a little bit of the stuff.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2013-06-17 14:54:43 UTC
the problem was never self repair it works fine when enemies are not many,but that the whole fleet can and should focus one ship at a time ,this is the main problem imho, ccp should work on to fix this , there is that jammer module they implemented (target breaker),but it doesnt do its job ,and it shouldnt require modules at all to begin with, too many shooting the same guy--> reduce dmg
same for rr
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2013-06-17 15:13:25 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
The issue is the armour repping modules rather than the bonus as Cyclone and shield ship have the same bonus difference being its easier to use ASB's and they are more powerful whilst using less slots and the no cap usage helps.
That's because somebody with no sense of game balance designed the ASB. Then they realized how badly they f'd-up and went out and hired some people who actually could create reasonably balanced mods & ships. But instead of going back and fixing their shiite mistake, the powers that be decided (as always) to not admit their mistake and try covering it up by nerfing other stuff (active hardeners). Or at least that's my tinfoil hat theory. Sad part is, it's probably dead-on.

The AAR is not a bad mod as it is now. In fact, it's actually fairly good for what it does. The problem is that ASBs are just vastly superior and we use those as the baseline for comparison.

As for the OP. The bonus works pretty well on the Myrm. It's fantastic for taking on small groups. Never had much luck with it on the Brutix (or the CSs) though. Could probably go with a different bonus for those.


Hasn,t it occured to anyone that the ASB should be the one getting restrictions, as the AAR is pretty efficient at what it does. This is just pushing more power creep...



NOpe. AAR is still too weak to be worth fitting for PVP. Most of time you are better with buffer tenk instead.

ASB is the first module in many many years that made active tanking worthwhile to use. AAR should be pushed to same level so that Buffer vs Active tank become a CHOICE!

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#29 - 2013-06-17 15:23:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.

Ok, so have you delved into those numbers more deeply? How much of that is pve use where an active bonus is quite nice? How much of that pve use is actually active armor and not passive regen shield (since you left the stupidly high BC shield regen stat unaltered)? How much of the still very weak pvp use is simply slapped-on flimsy shield buffer and nano'd and trying to make use of the damage potential these ships have? And, lastly, as you appear to also be seeing, but won't say, how dismal is the total use compared to say Prophecies and the still durable Drake usage?

You really still have more work to do with re-evaluating the balancing already done. Talwars and Caracals? wtf? How have you even touched the advantages of shield and trackingless (and tracking disruptionless) long range missiles, also with perma mwd? Why are the top 4 ships now Caldari, on eve-kill? And what about the continued Tengu supremacy even after the HM alterations? You just shifted it away from Drakes, which at least is something to be thankful for I will admit.

I appear to be making the same decision as almost everyone else, that having two active armor tanked Gallente combat BCs blows chunks.

Sincerely,

Deac

edit- but unlike some other posters I will thank you for the resist bonus nerf. However, it appears you have to re-evaluate why the Rokh remains the only tech I BS up there it numbers.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#30 - 2013-06-17 15:28:10 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Nikuno wrote:
Has anyone noticed any increase or change in the way these ships are used? Personally I still see very few of them in use and when I do see them they're doing the same job - much as was predicted when they were both given the rather lame armour rep bonus. Has it been long enough to now ask for a review of the bonus to at least one of these ships?

so the lame and stupid not needed resist nerf was all for nothing? who guessed ....
gj ccp especially Fozzie



I fully endorse and support this sentiment.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#31 - 2013-06-17 15:55:59 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
Ruze wrote:
As a personal opinion, actively repairing armor is flawed on the basis of it's concept. We receive repair at the end of the cycle, with extensive cap usage.

When the cap usage is tied with Amarr, active armor rep becomes a death knell.

I would like to see the rep hit far more often at less per cycle, equaling the current rep rate overall. I know this would be hard on servers, but it would mean our penalty for getting rep'd late would be less significant.

While I have no input for Gallente, seeing the few Amarr ships that have active rep bonuses converted to reduced cap bonuses could significantly add to the life of those ships, as it then adds to our capability to do other things.


Gallente suffer from cap issues with reps just as much to be fair, but in any fight where local reps will make a difference the numbers are generally small enough that the fight wouldn't last for more than the few minutes of cap boosters you'd have in your holds. On that front the Amarr ships have a slight advantage as the ammo takes up virtually no cargo space compared to the Gallente ships. In the end, it pans out pretty even for the 2 races.


No it does not, Amarr lasers typically have three times the cap use of any other cap using weapon system.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#32 - 2013-06-17 16:01:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Andendare
ExAstra wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.

Please throw us active armor tankers a bone.

Please.
I wouldn't be so cross about active armor ships if they were given +1 low to compensate for the need to add another EANM (since anyone who flies buffer--which is mostly everyone in pvp--effectively just flies the ship with a wasted bonus). Go wasted bonuses Gallente!

That being said, the fact that both the Myrm AND Brutix are still saddled with useless active repair bonuses is appalling. One of them should have been spared the humiliation and been given a proper second bonus, so at least one ship would have two bonuses that are actually useful.

It's good to have one option for a racial tanking style at each ship level, but sticking a useless bonus to both Gallente craft is appalling, especially considering that gang ships (with logi support) won't be actively tanked anyway. Why not give one of them a dual damage bonus? Unfortunately, it'd seem like that'd be the Myrm, considering that the BNI has dual damage bonuses.

CCP please link some ability for active repping bonuses to work with remote reps. It's wholly unfair that resist ships can shine in all three tanking environments (local, buffer and remote), while an actively tanked ship shines in ONE and is wasted on the others. How is that balanced?? It sounds more absurd than anything.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#33 - 2013-06-17 16:05:41 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.

Ok, so have you delved into those numbers more deeply? How much of that is pve use where an active bonus is quite nice? How much of that pve use is actually active armor and not passive regen shield (since you left the stupidly high BC shield regen stat unaltered)? How much of the still very weak pvp use is simply slapped-on flimsy shield buffer and nano'd and trying to make use of the damage potential these ships have? And, lastly, as you appear to also be seeing, but won't say, how dismal is the total use compared to say Prophecies and the still durable Drake usage?

You really still have more work to do with re-evaluating the balancing already done. Talwars and Caracals? wtf? How have you even touched the advantages of shield and trackingless (and tracking disruptionless) long range missiles, also with perma mwd? Why are the top 4 ships now Caldari, on eve-kill? And what about the continued Tengu supremacy even after the HM alterations? You just shifted it away from Drakes, which at least is something to be thankful for I will admit.

I appear to be making the same decision as almost everyone else, that having two active armor tanked Gallente combat BCs blows chunks.

Sincerely,

Deac

edit- but unlike some other posters I will thank you for the resist bonus nerf. However, it appears you have to re-evaluate why the Rokh remains the only tech I BS up there it numbers.


wow, I didn't believe it until I checked it myself, as it stands the june top 20 is

Caracal 74,868
Tengu 68,108
Rokh 47,605
Naga 40,533
Loki 40,513

I mean this goes to show that the latest round of balancing and those unpopular changes we warned the devs about have made the situation even worse. There was much more variety in racial ships in the eve-kill top 20 prior to the rebalancing.

However I worry that CCP will now actively look at nerfing those top 5 ships instead of buffing the others.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Coreola
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2013-06-17 16:51:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.


Just stop pigeonholing Gallente into both combat battlecruisers having the same worthless-for-gang-pvp bonuses.

Jump, jump, jump.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#35 - 2013-06-17 18:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.


Aye, the changes to the myrmidon and most specifically the Brutix has made them both far more attractive than they originally were. This combined with the nerfs to some of the overpowered BCs (cane) has allowed both of these ships to substantially jump in power relative to their counterparts.

As for tease about increasing active armor tanking some more... I think this is a great idea fozzie however It's not nearly as simple as just "buffing" the modules/ships to achieve some form of improvement as I'm sure you and the rest of the balance team obviously know.. My suggestion would be to increase the armor reppers and maybe even shield boosters however nerf the effect that links improve active tanking. The end result with links should be similar to how it is now however the increase in tanking power should be swung more heavily in favor of the actual tanking modules, not the links.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#36 - 2013-06-17 20:24:18 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
the problem was never self repair it works fine when enemies are not many,but that the whole fleet can and should focus one ship at a time ,this is the main problem imho, ccp should work on to fix this , there is that jammer module they implemented (target breaker),but it doesnt do its job ,and it shouldnt require modules at all to begin with, too many shooting the same guy--> reduce dmg
same for rr


agreed but thats a hard mechanic to perfect.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#37 - 2013-06-18 07:38:53 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
the problem was never self repair it works fine when enemies are not many,but that the whole fleet can and should focus one ship at a time ,this is the main problem imho, ccp should work on to fix this , there is that jammer module they implemented (target breaker),but it doesnt do its job ,and it shouldnt require modules at all to begin with, too many shooting the same guy--> reduce dmg
same for rr


agreed but thats a hard mechanic to perfect.


I've always wanted line of sight in Eve, not sure how hard it would be to implement nowadays?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#38 - 2013-06-18 08:45:20 UTC
One obvious way of buffing rep bonuses is to give hitpoint rigs (Trimarks, CDFEs) a stacking penalty.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#39 - 2013-06-18 09:13:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
One obvious way of buffing rep bonuses is to give hitpoint rigs (Trimarks, CDFEs) a stacking penalty.


This is a long time coming.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2013-06-18 10:19:07 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
There have been noticeable increases in the number of Myrms and Brutix being flown since 1.1, but I definitely won't say that we're fully happy with the state of those active armor bonuses. We're continuing to tweak and observe results as always.

Ok, so have you delved into those numbers more deeply? How much of that is pve use where an active bonus is quite nice? How much of that pve use is actually active armor and not passive regen shield (since you left the stupidly high BC shield regen stat unaltered)? How much of the still very weak pvp use is simply slapped-on flimsy shield buffer and nano'd and trying to make use of the damage potential these ships have? And, lastly, as you appear to also be seeing, but won't say, how dismal is the total use compared to say Prophecies and the still durable Drake usage?

You really still have more work to do with re-evaluating the balancing already done. Talwars and Caracals? wtf? How have you even touched the advantages of shield and trackingless (and tracking disruptionless) long range missiles, also with perma mwd? Why are the top 4 ships now Caldari, on eve-kill? And what about the continued Tengu supremacy even after the HM alterations? You just shifted it away from Drakes, which at least is something to be thankful for I will admit.

I appear to be making the same decision as almost everyone else, that having two active armor tanked Gallente combat BCs blows chunks.

Sincerely,

Deac

edit- but unlike some other posters I will thank you for the resist bonus nerf. However, it appears you have to re-evaluate why the Rokh remains the only tech I BS up there it numbers.


wow, I didn't believe it until I checked it myself, as it stands the june top 20 is

Caracal 74,868
Tengu 68,108
Rokh 47,605
Naga 40,533
Loki 40,513

I mean this goes to show that the latest round of balancing and those unpopular changes we warned the devs about have made the situation even worse. There was much more variety in racial ships in the eve-kill top 20 prior to the rebalancing.

However I worry that CCP will now actively look at nerfing those top 5 ships instead of buffing the others.



and people still cry Winmatar all over when the wise one were already seeing that minamtar was not flavor of the month anymore... people still beleived that the hurricane was strong ship.. while everyone able to use the brain noticed the
truth...



FINNALY.. the CIRCLE IS NOW COMPLETE! And we went all way back to 2006 when Caldari are Win Button would fill the forums.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"