These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Varun Arthie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2013-08-02 16:33:26 UTC
Why not change the Armour reps to be at the start of the cycle and not at the end? A lot of players would be happy by a change like that.

The amount of capacitor Armour rep modules use also needs a bit of tweaking too.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#222 - 2013-08-02 16:40:45 UTC
Gospadin wrote:
small/medium active armor repairers are already more efficient than small/medium shield boosters, why would they make it MORE out-of-whack?


For T2 and faction modules, two reppers have almost exactly the same rep:cap as a shield booster and an SBA. They also have extremely similar rep/boost per second. The shield modules have the advantage of boosting immediately and a shorter cycle time, while the armor modules have the advantage of much easier fitting stats and the fact that you can fit them singly and still have it be good individually.

For deadspace modules, this balance is utterly destroyed. The best deadspace armor reppers are a 30% (medium) to 40% (large) increase in rep:cap from faction armor reppers. The best deadspace shield booster plus best deadspace SBA results in a 218% (medium) to 298% (XL) increase in boost:cap from faction shield boosters. A T2 XLSB and T2 SBA is almost identical in effectiveness to two Large Armor Repairer IIs, but a Gist-X XLSB and a Ptih-X SBA boosts 2.12 times as effectively as two Centus-X Large Armor Repairers.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#223 - 2013-08-02 16:45:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Trifle Donier wrote:
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.



You clearly don't understand the shell game being played.

This dev post goes with the changes to ganglinks. The reason it goes together is because it mitigates the nerf to ogbs.

Its like they nerf the drake by giving it a decrease in range on missiles but then buff the heavy missile and heavy assault missile damage. End result is it looks like a real nerf to the drake but really it's inconsequential.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Pelea Ming
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#224 - 2013-08-02 16:52:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelea Ming
SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps?
Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%?
Leskit
Pure Victory
#225 - 2013-08-02 16:55:24 UTC
CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after.
I fail horribly at that type of stacking math.
so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers?

Thanks
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#226 - 2013-08-02 16:59:51 UTC
Leskit wrote:
CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after.
I fail horribly at that type of stacking math.
so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers?

Thanks



This but not just rep speed. Assume full ogb bonuses.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2013-08-02 17:00:33 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps?
Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%?


Aside from the ancillary shield boosters (which aren't getting buffed) and the Gist line of shield boosters, which also aren't getting boosted, shield really isn't better than armor.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2013-08-02 17:08:19 UTC
I hope there is going to be a module tiercide or rebalance soon then.

I find it really annoying that faction and deadspace modules are all over the place with regards to fitting/effectiveness.

I hate the way some modules are easier to fit and have the best stats. I would far prefer:

One type easy to fit

One type excellent performance

One type an all rounder but not easy to fit and not best performance
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2013-08-02 17:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobias Hareka
Xequecal wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps?
Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%?


Aside from the ancillary shield boosters (which aren't getting buffed) and the Gist line of shield boosters, which also aren't getting boosted, shield really isn't better than armor.


T2 X-Large w/ T2 shield boost amp vs T2 LAR

Fight!

Not to even mention you can fit X-L booster to cruisers...
Leskit
Pure Victory
#230 - 2013-08-02 17:15:06 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Leskit wrote:
CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after.
I fail horribly at that type of stacking math.
so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers?

Thanks



This but not just rep speed. Assume full ogb bonuses.

the reason i left resists off was more for consistency-the resists varying by ship hull will change the amount, but yeah, it would be nice to have numbers for all of it.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#231 - 2013-08-02 17:16:07 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps?
Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%?


Aside from the ancillary shield boosters (which aren't getting buffed) and the Gist line of shield boosters, which also aren't getting boosted, shield really isn't better than armor.


T2 X-Large w/ T2 shield boost amp vs T2 LAR

Fight!

Not to even mention you can fit X-L booster to cruisers...


Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again?
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#232 - 2013-08-02 17:16:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
Leskit wrote:
CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after.
I fail horribly at that type of stacking math.
so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers?

Thanks

In the simplest possible case (assuming no resist modules on the tanking ship to avoid complications arising from stacking penalties), current tanking links increase the strength of an active tank by a factor of 2.36. After the change, a full suite of tanking links will only increase local tank strength by a factor of 1.82 (if boosted by a maxed-out command ship) or 1.77 (if boosted by a maxed out T3). Combined with the 15% increase in local tanks due to the repper buff, this means that a boosted local tank after the patch will be 2.09 times stronger than an unboosted local tank on TQ today if the bonuses are coming from a command ship, and around 2.03 times stronger than an unboosted local tank today if the bonuses are coming from a T3.

TL,DR - after Odyssey 1.1, linked active armor tanks will be around 14-15% weaker than they are on TQ today.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2013-08-02 17:22:16 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again?


T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2013-08-02 17:35:34 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again?


T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger


Ok, first of all, you're comparing a ship with a boosting bonus to a ship without a rep or resist bonus, which is highly dishonest to begin with.

Second, any viable XLSB Cyclone fit has no SBA, because the first Invuln II is better than an SBA. It's pretty comparable to say a triple rep Myrmidon, due to the much lower fitting on the medium reps. XLSB cyclone will need CPU fitting mods to fit a full rack of launchers and BCSes for sure.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#235 - 2013-08-02 17:36:09 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I hope there is going to be a module tiercide or rebalance soon then.

I find it really annoying that faction and deadspace modules are all over the place with regards to fitting/effectiveness.

I hate the way some modules are easier to fit and have the best stats. I would far prefer:

One type easy to fit

One type excellent performance

One type an all rounder but not easy to fit and not best performance


indeed i am hopping for something akin to guns in dust 514... where each one is good in its own reguard and there is not just one best.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#236 - 2013-08-02 17:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobias Hareka
Xequecal wrote:
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again?


T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger


Ok, first of all, you're comparing a ship with a boosting bonus to a ship without a rep or resist bonus, which is highly dishonest to begin with.

Second, any viable XLSB Cyclone fit has no SBA, because the first Invuln II is better than an SBA. It's pretty comparable to say a triple rep Myrmidon, due to the much lower fitting on the medium reps. XLSB cyclone will need CPU fitting mods to fit a full rack of launchers and BCSes for sure.


Exactly the point. You need 3 repairers + rep bonus to match Cyclones repping power with only one shield booster.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2013-08-02 17:41:31 UTC
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again?


T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger


Ok, first of all, you're comparing a ship with a boosting bonus to a ship without a rep or resist bonus, which is highly dishonest to begin with.

Second, any viable XLSB Cyclone fit has no SBA, because the first Invuln II is better than an SBA. It's pretty comparable to say a triple rep Myrmidon, due to the much lower fitting on the medium reps. XLSB cyclone will need CPU fitting mods to fit a full rack of launchers and BCSes for sure.


Exactly the point. You need 3 repaires + rep bonus to match Cyclones repping power with only one shield booster.


The cyclone needs fitting mods to make an XLSB work, the Myrmidon doesn't need them for its rep fit.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#238 - 2013-08-02 17:43:50 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Leskit wrote:
CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after.
I fail horribly at that type of stacking math.
so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers?

Thanks

In the simplest possible case (assuming no resist modules on the tanking ship to avoid complications arising from stacking penalties), current tanking links increase the strength of an active tank by a factor of 2.36. After the change, a full suite of tanking links will only increase local tank strength by a factor of 1.82 (if boosted by a maxed-out command ship) or 1.77 (if boosted by a maxed out T3). Combined with the 15% increase in local tanks due to the repper buff, this means that a boosted local tank after the patch will be 2.09 times stronger than an unboosted local tank on TQ today if the bonuses are coming from a command ship, and around 2.03 times stronger than an unboosted local tank today if the bonuses are coming from a T3.

TL,DR - after Odyssey 1.1, linked active armor tanks will be around 14-15% weaker than they are on TQ today.



So if we isolate the local rep bonus would this be accurate?

Assume regular incursus with no links is tanking 100 dps. After this local rep bonus it will tank 115 dps.

The exact same incursus with a fully bonused t3 ship would be tanking 177 dps without this local bonus. With the local bonus it will tank 203 dps.

So this bonus adds 26 dps of tank to the linked ship but only 15 dps to the unlinked ship.

This local tank bonus effectively mitigates the "nerf" to t3 ogb tank bonuses by 39%.

I think the nerf to ogbs was way too weak and doesn't need to be mitigated.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2013-08-02 17:49:41 UTC
Xequecal wrote:
The cyclone needs fitting mods to make an XLSB work, the Myrmidon doesn't need them for its rep fit.


You need 3% PG implant to fit those repairers.
Sigras
Conglomo
#240 - 2013-08-02 18:05:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Cearain wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
Leskit wrote:
CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after.
I fail horribly at that type of stacking math.
so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers?

Thanks

In the simplest possible case (assuming no resist modules on the tanking ship to avoid complications arising from stacking penalties), current tanking links increase the strength of an active tank by a factor of 2.36. After the change, a full suite of tanking links will only increase local tank strength by a factor of 1.82 (if boosted by a maxed-out command ship) or 1.77 (if boosted by a maxed out T3). Combined with the 15% increase in local tanks due to the repper buff, this means that a boosted local tank after the patch will be 2.09 times stronger than an unboosted local tank on TQ today if the bonuses are coming from a command ship, and around 2.03 times stronger than an unboosted local tank today if the bonuses are coming from a T3.

TL,DR - after Odyssey 1.1, linked active armor tanks will be around 14-15% weaker than they are on TQ today.



So if we isolate the local rep bonus would this be accurate?

Assume regular incursus with no links is tanking 100 dps. After this local rep bonus it will tank 115 dps.

The exact same incursus with a fully bonused t3 ship would be tanking 177 dps without this local bonus. With the local bonus it will tank 203 dps.

So this bonus adds 26 dps of tank to the linked ship but only 15 dps to the unlinked ship.

This local tank bonus effectively mitigates the "nerf" to t3 ogb tank bonuses by 39%.

I think the nerf to ogbs was way too weak and doesn't need to be mitigated.

yes, your math is correct, but youre looking at it the wrong way.

if a ship tanks 100 DPS with the old links it would tank 100 * 2.36 = 236 from a max bonused T3 (right now)
with the new local bonus the ship will tank 115 DPS with the new links, it will tank 115 * 1.82 = 209.3

not only is this way less, its also way less of a difference