These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#381 - 2013-08-08 10:15:57 UTC
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
*snip*

Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.



I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before.


You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts.


Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#382 - 2013-08-08 10:49:45 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
*snip*

Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.



I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before.


You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts.


Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.


How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement.

I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.






.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#383 - 2013-08-08 11:33:47 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.


Nope, it's several things but not a blob:

1-an MMO is a gaming/social experience and social means several people interacting together, opposite is antisocial and any psychiatrist will tell you MMOs are not well suited for those people that are rather disturbing elements in whatever social interaction.

2-selling point of Eve is not "twinks online" for that there are several known private servers of almost every game where day 1 you get tops stuff and program to create your own super ultra twink, but becomes quickly boring heh?

3-choosing to play solo in Eve has a much different impact than in any other game. Because losses have meanings, because scripts are not aloud (still many use bots and programs to enhance significantly their in game abilities) and because Eve is about numbers, like it or hate it that's how it is, REAL solo players never complain and ACT - take a look at some Kill2 videos to figure what is a real solo player in Eve and not another random pawn with boosters at pos and cloak support if things turn bad for him because his KB would look shameful (in his poor mind) if he looses one ship and at the same time not shameful with hundreds of cyno frigs killed Lol

In Eve there are groups of players interacting one way or another with each other but everything is about competition, solo combat players are not representative of the game core or selling argument.
Doesn't mean they don't have their place but just that they have to play with the exact same rubicube everyone else in Eve does and stop complaining about "blob" here "blob" there, if they really hate that much interact with other players they can always play google games and sudoku.

On topic, while armor reps are getting a bit better and before going even further on whatever nerf/buff CCP Fozzie should really consider the feedback from all threads about this for a couple years, there's one constant coming back every single time: Efficiency HPs/cap because it's the only one that matters with local reps and in this specific department armor are a huge lie with used words to describe it like "sustainability", wtf is this lie when you have to use cap booster changers that ARE FINITE???

CCP trolling always best trolling.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#384 - 2013-08-08 12:26:51 UTC
can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff?
i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.

buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep...
Caleb Seremshur
Commando Guri
Guristas Pirates
#385 - 2013-08-08 12:40:53 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff?
i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.

buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep...


I'd say what you're looking at is CCP trying to encourage people switching to active tanking outside of big fleets because active tanks are weaker by nature. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: active tanks die to alpha and are weaker to neuts or high dps. Buffer tanking will always be preferable to active tanking for any situation where dps can be spared for logi.

I would expect nerfs to remote repairing to come before the year is over. It makes sense if they're trying to weaken blob tactics by reducing their buffer hp, their links and finishing the process by nerfing remote reps probably by making logi ships incapable of cap stability
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#386 - 2013-08-08 13:12:12 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
1-an MMO is a gaming/social experience...

You mean like real life where people treat each other like dirt so that everyone are more content glued to a smart-phone screen where they "interact" with people they don't really know and will probably never meet? Big smile
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
2-selling point of Eve is not "twinks online" for that...

You mean dumping a wad of cash at CCP's door, buying a 100M+ SP character with retinue and faction/officer fitting it does not count as twinking? Sure seems like it to me.
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
3-choosing to play solo in Eve has a much different impact than in any other game...

K2 got out of the game before T3's became omni-present/mandatory and he was of the old school with an interest in experimentation and challenging himself .. hardly the poster boy for current solo'ers now that KB stats and bragging rights are everything.
Think long and hard, then name ten or even just five people are a dedicated solo'ers who scoff at links and other augments (includes bat-phone calls).
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
On topic, while armor reps are getting a bit better...

'Bit better' is an understatement of epic proportions, there are ships that cannot (ie. before this change) be broken with an equally sized ship no matter how/what you fly and fit .. that will be worse post change and push the already unfavoured hulls over the edge into obsolescence.
Cap booster charges are indeed finite, but cargo holds are big enough to last well beyond the fight or several fights for that matter so they are for all intents and purposes infinite .. nanite paste was meant to address that but the sheer power while loaded more than makes up for the reduced efficiency when not.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#387 - 2013-08-08 14:20:56 UTC
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff?
i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.

buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep...

The buff was done to makeup for the loss that came from the link nerf, that is all.
Many, myself included, took this opprutinity to bring up the flaws with armor tanking and ask for further change to it so that it would have a better foothold with shield tanking.

Right now shield tanking is more efficient in pretty much every fashion.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#388 - 2013-08-08 14:28:02 UTC
It wouldn't really matter if you completely closed the HP/sec between shield and armor repair. Their application is really the problem. With shields applying their boost at the beginning of their cycle, their max rep amount in any time window is 2x boost in cycle time + some small portion of a second. This provides a massive boost to shield values in the opening seconds of a battle and can help you survive the second alpha strike (granted the first didn't overcome your shield completely). If your opponent's gun cycle is 7+ seconds, you can even pack 3 complete boosts in between the first and second strike. From that point on, it's up to your HP/sec vs their DPS.

Armor is much worse in this scenario. Because armor reppers provide their benefit at the end of their cycle and have long cycle times, the opponent would easily get off two strikes before even your first rep lands. At least the first strike will simply be burning your shields. The problem is that in any given window of time an armor boat can only rep twice in ~9.25 seconds and only once at the opening of the battle in 17.75 seconds. Taking the same opponent as before, they can manage 3 strikes against you while you can only rep once at the opening of the battle. Depending on how quickly you activate your repper after the first hit, they can even manage 5 strikes against two of your repair cycles.

Time: Strikes-Reps
T+0: 1-0
T+7: 2-0
T+9: 2-1
T+14: 3-1
T+18: 3-2
T+21: 4-2
T+27: 4-3


So your opponent operates at 300% damage at T+14 versus your 100% rep (This is more realistically 200% as your shield will probably eat most or all of the initial strike). Things even out after that but you'll always be down one rep cycle to their weapons and at times two. This is the best case scenario with you activating your repper at the exact moment of the incoming damage. How does a shield setup compare?

T+0: 1-0
T+.5: 1-1
T+3.7: 1-2
T+6.9: 1-3
T+7: 2-3


It's almost completely opposite. The shield tanker can squeeze in three full boosts prior to the second strike. Most likely eliminating the initial strikes effects entirely. From that point on they typically operate from 150-200% boost vs the opponents 100% damage. The real issue isn't HP/sec but HP/time window. Things would be more equitable if shields boosted at the end of their shorter cycle and armor was at the beginning. Here's how that looks:

Time: Strike/Shield/Armor
T+0: 1-0-0
T+.5: 1-0-1
T+3.7: 1-1-1
T+6.9: 1-2-1
T+7: 2-2-1
T+9.5: 2-2-2


Shields are still capable of packing two extra cycles into the RoF of the opponents weapons but it will usually only be one. Armor will see significant benefits as they will remain even most of time and only occasionally fall behind a cycle for a limited time. If someone can pop you with 1 strike above your rep cycle you were going to lose anyways. But the way it sits now, you're going to take at least 2 strikes between reps and that is far too dangerous.

Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#389 - 2013-08-08 14:28:40 UTC
Roime wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
*snip*

Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.



I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before.


You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts.


Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.


How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement.

I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.






You should not be able to tank 2-3 of them, you should outplay them by kiting or seperating them long enough to get a kill.

And whoever thinks gameplay that encourages blobbing is good can **** off.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#390 - 2013-08-08 14:57:21 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Roime wrote:

How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement.

I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.






You should not be able to tank 2-3 of them, you should outplay them by kiting or seperating them long enough to get a kill.

And whoever thinks gameplay that encourages blobbing is good can **** off.

So, you basically think armor tanking should be removed as armor ships are not know for there agility and speed. that kiting modules use low slots which is the same place as armor resist mods, armor rep mods, and damage mods.

So as armor you should not be able to tank 2~3, you can't kite them well, and you can't out gun them.

So where should armor tanking lay then?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#391 - 2013-08-08 15:02:33 UTC
Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.

I have nothing against active tanks as such, as long as they are in a reasonable spectrum, but t2 resitances are a 33% buff or so over t1 hulls (before aplliying rigs and fits that boost that even further), + a 15% buff and either additional resitance boni or the 37.5% rep bonus some ships have in total result in to high amount of active tanks.

Where armour ships should be? Well they usually have better ehp/dps due to higher tanks then shield ships and make up for the slight loss of speed by having more mid slots to work with.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#392 - 2013-08-08 16:49:13 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Roime wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Heribeck Weathers wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
*snip*

Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.



I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before.


You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts.


Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.


How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement.

I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.






You should not be able to tank 2-3 of them, you should outplay them by kiting or seperating them long enough to get a kill.

And whoever thinks gameplay that encourages blobbing is good can **** off.


Why should you be able to kite 2-3 ships but not active tank them? Having more than one viable option to fight outnumbered is only good for the game. Embrace the variety!

Another recent fight I had in the Myrm was against a Cane- a standoff where he couldn't break me, and I couldn't get hard tackle on him. I like this kind of balance, only piloting skill or mistake would have resolved the fight, and not ship stats.

Kiting has been EVE on easy mode for ages, it's time to see other solutions viable on TQ.

.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#393 - 2013-08-08 17:07:06 UTC
Cause unlike brawling ktiing takes skill? A kiter that only uses orbit/keep at range can easily be slingshotted.

A caught kiter is dead, a caught active tanker tanks forver, as does a kited one.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#394 - 2013-08-08 18:02:40 UTC
Oh I should have guessed you are one of those who think that flying a faster ship means you have player skills.

Doubleclicking in space, the pinnacle of skills :D I do both, and winning by kiting is far easier and offers no real challenge, or risk.

Active tanking brawlers are always caught, you commit to the fight. And no, active tanks don't last forever, only until nanite/cap charges last.

.
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#395 - 2013-08-08 18:16:38 UTC
You really think that fights should be decided by cargo space?
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#396 - 2013-08-08 18:43:44 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.


Only if you forget that about 3/4 of the deadspace shield boosters are off-the-charts good compared to the other shield boosters or any of the deadspace armor reppers.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#397 - 2013-08-08 18:48:51 UTC
Roime wrote:


Why should you be able to kite 2-3 ships but not active tank them? Having more than one viable option to fight outnumbered is only good for the game. Embrace the variety!


Well, because its possible for 3 people to beat up one guy, but if that one guy can run super fast, it doesn't matter how many slow guys are chasing him, they won't get faster by having more numbers.

Or think about swords. two sword swords to not transform into a really long sword. Unless its anime.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#398 - 2013-08-08 18:51:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

    • Let us know what you think!


    Shields will still be op while armor needs something more. +20% rep amount or +15% rep amount and -X% cap usage because i see it like this.


    • you can easily put over sized shield rep and still have a great fit, buffing everything shield vise will only put shield tanking even more in front of armor tanking
    • no change on asb's is good but still they dont use any cap and you can put more then one AND you can over size them, while armor uses both cap and charges and you can only put one (almost impossible to put over sized module as well)
    • buffing AAR for 15% will not help that much because see previous statement (you can't really rely on just one)




    W0lf Crendraven
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #399 - 2013-08-08 19:07:42 UTC
    Batelle wrote:
    W0lf Crendraven wrote:
    Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.


    Only if you forget that about 3/4 of the deadspace shield boosters are off-the-charts good compared to the other shield boosters or any of the deadspace armor reppers.


    No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example).
    Tobias Hareka
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #400 - 2013-08-08 19:15:23 UTC
    W0lf Crendraven wrote:
    No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example).


    Centus A-Type LAR isn't better than Gist A-Type X-L booster.