These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Local Armor and Shield repair module changes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#201 - 2013-08-02 11:57:26 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.




Won't this boost widen the gap between those who boost with links and those who boost without?

Please show us how many dps will a single sar2 incursus will rep now with this local rep bonus and without no ogbs. Also show cap stability/time.

Then show us how many dps a single sar2 incursus will rep with this new rep bonus with full amarr ogbs. Again also show cap.

I might be wrong but it seems you are still trying to buff ogbs.


Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games.
Suddenly Spaceships.
#202 - 2013-08-02 11:58:17 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
This change is smart and appropriate. I do wonder why Deadspace/Officer boosters aren't being buffed a little bit though to bring them in line with cost/efficiency? Is there any reason I've overlooked as to why they shouldn't be?


Gist C/B/A-Types.


So? They are expensive, if you pay the money, you get the increase. This just means that these shield boosters won't be purchased as much.
Doed
Tyrfing Industries
#203 - 2013-08-02 12:03:19 UTC
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
This change is smart and appropriate. I do wonder why Deadspace/Officer boosters aren't being buffed a little bit though to bring them in line with cost/efficiency? Is there any reason I've overlooked as to why they shouldn't be?


Gist C/B/A-Types.


So? They are expensive, if you pay the money, you get the increase. This just means that these shield boosters won't be purchased as much.


Gist ones will still be good, Pith C and B will be kinda rubbish
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#204 - 2013-08-02 12:10:55 UTC
Sounds good at a quick glance. The different between T2 reps and deadspace is insane at the moment, providing faction correctly sits in the middle (ie faction not overlapping c-type deadspace) then it should be great :)

Looking forward to some numbers.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-08-02 12:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Roime wrote:
CHRISTMAS CAME EARLY THIS YEAR

**** YEAH

And Sergeant, shield scrubs don't have RAH



Indeed but what's the efficiency of RAH knowing you're taking even more cap and increasing a single resist overtime?

Again it's situational and nice for small roaming gangs etc because chances you have to fight equal numbers over 10ships without logistics are close to null.

The moment you have logistics 1x 1600plate taking no cap and an extra resist plating is superior (resists always superior the moment you have logistics)

So lets put things in order:

400 cap use for T2 rep or Cap use+nanites for meh reps unless OH and still eat cap
cap use for RAH
cap use for hardeners
Edit to add: simple fact of shooting decent dps ammo also takes large chunks of your cap

Your 3 mid slot armor ship better not have to fight equal numbers after 5 unless it's a Proteus brick Legion or CS same race.
I'm not saying they will not succeed but just saying it's a silly micromanagement game in the game bringing no real benefit compared to ASB's or SB setups.

When was the last time you saw a PVP armor tanker fitting A-Type medium or large reps? -those are extremely rare compared to A-Type SB pvp setups, and there's a reason for this, SB's are completely OP.

Shields are about boosting and armor overtime I'm ok of that old argument, however when shield ships push the same amounts of EHP better resist profile and reps efficiency it's no match.
Look at the amount of shield Vigilants fitted with ASB's and so one for other ships, try Double XL ASB domi some day, it's a pure dps brute with a dirty tank better have some friends to take it out before it cleans the field.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2013-08-02 12:36:39 UTC
Armor got little buff too, maybe it should be 20% to be even more in line with shield rep. All in all good changes
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
#207 - 2013-08-02 12:50:47 UTC
Cearain wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.




Won't this boost widen the gap between those who boost with links and those who boost without?

Please show us how many dps will a single sar2 incursus will rep now with this local rep bonus and without no ogbs. Also show cap stability/time.

Then show us how many dps a single sar2 incursus will rep with this new rep bonus with full amarr ogbs. Again also show cap.

I might be wrong but it seems you are still trying to buff ogbs.




No, you're wrong here. Someone with OGB will still be better than someone without. That's a simple true fact and unavoidable until the end of OGB.

However, that gap is closing. Links are getting nerfs in the tanking department while straight up local repping gets buffs. As Fozzie states, this reduces a fully boosted local tank but increases a solo tank. It also, by way of the link nerfs, reduces logistics and buffer effectiveness on a relative and actual scale.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#208 - 2013-08-02 13:31:18 UTC
Kenneth Skybound wrote:
Cearain wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.




Won't this boost widen the gap between those who boost with links and those who boost without?

Please show us how many dps will a single sar2 incursus will rep now with this local rep bonus and without no ogbs. Also show cap stability/time.

Then show us how many dps a single sar2 incursus will rep with this new rep bonus with full amarr ogbs. Again also show cap.

I might be wrong but it seems you are still trying to buff ogbs.




No, you're wrong here. Someone with OGB will still be better than someone without. That's a simple true fact and unavoidable until the end of OGB.

However, that gap is closing. Links are getting nerfs in the tanking department while straight up local repping gets buffs. As Fozzie states, this reduces a fully boosted local tank but increases a solo tank. It also, by way of the link nerfs, reduces logistics and buffer effectiveness on a relative and actual scale.


You are falling for the ccp ogb alt shell game.

Buffing heavy missiles would buff the drake. Why? Because the drake is bonused to heavy missiles.


Gang links give bonus to local reps. Therefore giving bonuses to local reps boosts gang links.

Its time to post the numbers. This like every boost to active tanking is a ninja boost to ogb alts.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#209 - 2013-08-02 13:35:34 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
I am concerned about the impact of this change on frigates - buffer-tanking isn't in a good place as is (unless you run with a HG Slave set) and this change will only make matters worse.

Where is the problem that you are trying to fix by giving small armor repairers a 15% boost? Is the dual-rep Incursus, Vengeance, ... too weak as is or are you just trying to make these ships unkillable? Do you want active tank to be the only option on brawling frigates?

edit: Single MSE buffer-tanked frigates are already simply not viable. In a 400mm plated frigate with slave set I can barely outlast dual ASB setups, without slave set I would lose such fights 7 times out of 10. Contrary to public belief the vast majority of FW players does not have Tengu or Legion at hand. Compensating for a nerf to fleet boosters by giving an increase to all active reps will shift the balance of power even further away from buffer setups. Go out and actually try frigate pvp - the majority of enemies will already be active tanked and most of the rest run entirely tankless setups (kiting destroyers, dampening condors, ...). Try flying a buffer-tanked frigate without 3b in implants and report the results, there's a reason why almost nobody is flying buffer tank as is.



If you had to buy a second account to use slaves, ccp would care about your post. But active tanks are the ones that work well with the ogb alts so they will get the boosts.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Luc Chastot
#210 - 2013-08-02 14:04:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Luc Chastot
All repair modules should be balanced individually; also, not only should their repair amount be changed, but also any other stat that is relevant to keep a distinct flavor between shields and armor.

Edit: I would rather getting a full active tank rebalance one or two months from now, even as the sole feature of a new point release.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
#211 - 2013-08-02 14:24:44 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Gang links give bonus to local reps. Therefore giving bonuses to local reps boosts gang links.

Its time to post the numbers. This like every boost to active tanking is a ninja boost to ogb alts.


Not if you nerf said links at the same time as you boost local reps. Hint: read the links thread.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2013-08-02 14:41:17 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
    • These numbers should have been:

  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10%

    • That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start.

    The AAR did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing TEs did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing resist bonuses did not fix armor tanking. The ASB made active armor suck even harder next to active shields. You have wasted months on all these gimmicks and silly, backhanded, irrelevant tweaks. But you still haven't actually done anything to make active armor tanking viable next to active shield tanking.

    It's time to stop playing games and get back to basics: Do the hard work of rebalancing the core, fundamental mechanics of armor and shield active tanking.

    EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
    Ju0ZaS
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #213 - 2013-08-02 14:45:47 UTC
    IMO you should give a 5% increase in rep and boost amounts for the deadspace mods then.

    Are you going to fight me or do you expect to bore me to death with your forum pvp?
    Caleb Ayrania
    TarNec
    Invisible Exchequer
    #214 - 2013-08-02 14:46:25 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    blarggg wrote:
    Caleb Ayrania wrote:
    Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)

    Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?




    I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed.

    Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math)


    Not as part of this change no.


    So basically you guys are balancing the onboard reps but not the remotes and not the drones?

    Is that not a bit stupid? Wont that just make your future balance issues that much more complicated?

    Also what is the philosophy about not boosting some meta levels?
    It seems extremely stupid to mess up values of meta by some artificial usability and not by fixing the drop rates?

    Ideally theses things should be considered in a much more holistic approach, so for example overheating tollerance is high on low meta, but destruction chance is also high, and vice versa on higher meta. Then tweak the drop rates and consider using a global counting serverside and increase drop chance when universal population drops below certain thresholds.

    When you change "nerf" bonuses it really just mess up the whole intuitive aspect of guessing values and usability..

    Cearain
    Plus 10 NV
    #215 - 2013-08-02 15:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
    Caleb Ayrania wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    blarggg wrote:
    Caleb Ayrania wrote:
    Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)

    Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?




    I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed.

    Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math)


    Not as part of this change no.


    So basically you guys are balancing the onboard reps but not the remotes and not the drones?

    Is that not a bit stupid? Wont that just make your future balance issues that much more complicated?

    Also what is the philosophy about not boosting some meta levels?
    It seems extremely stupid to mess up values of meta by some artificial usability and not by fixing the drop rates?

    Ideally theses things should be considered in a much more holistic approach, so for example overheating tollerance is high on low meta, but destruction chance is also high, and vice versa on higher meta. Then tweak the drop rates and consider using a global counting serverside and increase drop chance when universal population drops below certain thresholds.

    When you change "nerf" bonuses it really just mess up the whole intuitive aspect of guessing values and usability..



    The idea behind boosting the local active tank was to mitigate the nerf to ogbs. If drones got a boost from ogbs they would have been buffed too. They wanted to make sure ogb still equals god mode.

    Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
    Gospadin
    Bastard Children of Poinen
    #216 - 2013-08-02 15:03:17 UTC
    Freighdee Katt wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
    • These numbers should have been:

  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10%

    • That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start.


    small/medium active armor repairers are already more efficient than small/medium shield boosters, why would they make it MORE out-of-whack?
    Boris Amarr
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #217 - 2013-08-02 15:18:35 UTC
    Freighdee Katt wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
    • These numbers should have been:

  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10%

    • That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start.

    The AAR did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing TEs did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing resist bonuses did not fix armor tanking. The ASB made active armor suck even harder next to active shields. You have wasted months on all these gimmicks and silly, backhanded, irrelevant tweaks. But you still haven't actually done anything to make active armor tanking viable next to active shield tanking.

    It's time to stop playing games and get back to basics: Do the hard work of rebalancing the core, fundamental mechanics of armor and shield active tanking.

    +1
    Lucretia DeWinter
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #218 - 2013-08-02 15:50:18 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Judas II wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%

    • Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc)


    Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not.


    This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG


    You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.


    Keep it as is and drop the fitting reqs for the Pith C-Type by 7.5-10% and a small boost to the C-Type from 264 up to 275 keeps the C-Type about as much an improvement as current without overpowering or getting too close to the B-Types. The Gists still have their enormous Cap Usage advantage, so should be fine.

    Otherwise, I feel the DG/CN versions will lose out too much on T2/Deadspace and I'd be more concerned about crashing the LP store item's value and efficiency than a rare drop version. Plus Republic and Domination versions would be much stronger with a buff to rep amount in addition to their cap benefits.


    /IMO
    KiithSoban
    Mackies Raiders
    Wild Geese.
    #219 - 2013-08-02 16:00:29 UTC
    Specific ships that i think would become unbalanced b/c of this change:

    incursus*, hawk, merlin, harpy

    I don't see much issue at the destroyer, cruiser, BC, or BS level though.

    As for caps, who is to say? It sure would be a lot easier to run c5/c6 WH sites. Ouch. Don't even think about breaking a carrier anymore without a butt load of subcaps. Neuts even more now than ever seem to be the way to handle that.

    Seems ok to me, but I'm a little worried about the incursus and how this would change things on the frigate level. Do you mean to let some frigs parma tank (cap stable) a kyting frig of the same isk cost? Right now, in a rail atron, it is difficult as is to break an incursus with 114 dps. Forget about the hawk and harpy. The merlin and punisher would also be in the same realm, but not quite as bad.

    I want to see logi appear on killmails! (by just repping)  See CSM "reasonable things"
    Nyancat Audeles
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #220 - 2013-08-02 16:33:22 UTC
    This change is AMAZING! A wish come true for small and microgang (even solo) PvP. PvE fits will not have to have some super bling to actually effectively tank a L4 in a sub-battleship class ship!