These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Armor / shield rig concept discussion for Inferno

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
IamBeastx
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-04-23 15:37:00 UTC
So essentially, shield based ships like minmatar race ships, which have always been touted as being more speed and maneuverability based and from what i remember are also referenced in the rpg element of eve as being speed, based are getting a speed nerf for there shield based fitting choices. ubad

All my life i wanted to be someone, now i know i should have been more specific.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#22 - 2012-04-23 15:44:19 UTC
IamBeastx wrote:
So essentially, shield based ships like minmatar race ships, which have always been touted as being more speed and maneuverability based and from what i remember are also referenced in the rpg element of eve as being speed, based are getting a speed nerf for there shield based fitting choices. ubad

Even if you penalize me with a 90% percent speed cut for having the audacity to put an anti-em rig on a hurricane it would still be preferable to active tanking it in any setting outside pve and solo pvp.
Lee Dalton
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-04-23 15:44:52 UTC
This is dumb and you are dumb for considering it.
Tawa Suyo
C.O.D.E
#24 - 2012-04-23 15:45:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tawa Suyo
This just seems like arbitary homogenisation of shield vs armour tanking. Is there not supposed to be a noticeable difference between the two allowing for more choice and therefore deeper gameplay?

Treating resist rigs as passive rigs in terms of penalty also seems faintly ridiculous, they are far more heavily used in active tanking, shield especially.


I applaud the urge to make active tanking more desirable, however, these changes would do nothing to address the inherent weaknesses of active tanking. Namely the very binary level of strength (it's great until you add one more person than it can tank, then it falls over very rapidly) and it's high cap dependance.

By effectively nerfing the ability to kite with buffer fits and doing nothing to increase active fits ability to deal with large numbers (especially given the introduction of tier3 BCs with both incredibly high dps and damage projection) you are encouraging a game balanced around numerical superiority rather than skill or tactics. These changes effectively reduce the ability for smaller gangs to engage heavily outnumbered.


Is buffing the blob and forcing small gang/solo players to only fight other small gang/solo players really your intended design?
If I wanted to play a game where I only engaged equal sized teams then I wouldn't be playing Eve...
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#25 - 2012-04-23 15:46:29 UTC
It's not a bad idea for counter the nanoswarm,
BUT it's totally ****** for "big" armor ship active tanked like hyperion, astarte, vindic, ect, it's already hard to active tank in this game, but now if these ship going to have a big signature, it's going to be MORE hard, and the velocity boost is just a big joke, cause these ship have a big ass, and can't outrun 90% of other pvp ship, with or whitout velocity malus.
CCP, give MORE LOVE TO ACTIVE ARMOR TANKING !
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-04-23 15:47:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rara Yariza
Edit: other people said it better: Consider alpha strike, consider the reasons people fly fast kting ships: to counter blobs.

Tawa Suyo wrote:
This just seems like arbitary homogenisation of shield vs armour tanking. Is there not supposed to be a noticeable difference between the two allowing for more choice and therefore deeper gameplay?

Treating resist rigs as passive rigs in terms of penalty also seems faintly ridiculous, they are far more heavily used in active tanking, shield especially.


I applaud the urge to make active tanking more desirable, however, these changes would do nothing to address the inherent weaknesses of active tanking. Namely the very binary level of strength (it's great until you add one more person than it can tank, then it falls over very rapidly) and it's high cap dependance.

By effectively nerfing the ability to kite with buffer fits and doing nothing to increase active fits ability to deal with large numbers (especially given the introduction of tier3 BCs with both incredibly high dps and damage projection) you are encouraging a game balanced around numerical superiority rather than skill or tactics. These changes effectively reduce the ability for smaller gangs to engage heavily outnumbered.


Is buffing the blob and forcing small gang/solo players to only fight other small gang/solo players really your intended design?
If I wanted to play a game where I only engaged equal sized teams then I wouldn't be playing Eve...
Djakku
U Subbed M8
#27 - 2012-04-23 15:50:05 UTC
no no no no NO NO NO.

You are effectively nerfing an entire tactic by making all buffer rigs have a velocity penalty.

90% of fast attack ships are shield tanked.

Due to the current state of the game if you are planning on flying any high-speed ship it is best to max out your tank including the use of shield extender rigs, other rigs do not offer enough to make them useful.

Are you honestly suggesting that you change the game so that anyone who wants to fly fast has to fit an active tank? Shocked

'But Djakku you could use gun/missile or speed rigs!'

You need to get off EFT and play the game.

If you're already going fast due to natural speed speed + mwd + nano, then velocity/agility rigs are only gonna make you go faster which isn't helpful, gun/missile rigs dont give enough boost as you've already stacked damage or tracking mods in your low slots because your shield tanked and you get dimishing returns for using those rigs.

lets take an example, a major threat from fast moving ships such as the Hurricane or Vagabond is the Drake, the Drakes damage projection is insane, you need TANK if you're planning on flying fast ships and keeping out of scram range, flying fast and kiting is literally "how long do I have to kill something before these lolheavymissiles force me to warp away" You are reducing that time.

I honestly don't see any need for this change at all, it's like a change for the sake of a change, other issues need to be addressed before changes like this are made, if somewhere in 0.0 some alliance is losing there sov because of 1200 capstable perma-mwding loldrakes is destroying stuff then you address that issue, dont affect the gameplay of your entire player base
Max Butched
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-04-23 15:50:06 UTC
but look guyz, he just posting this so we can help him out figuring out how to do his job Roll
Conjaq
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-04-23 15:53:33 UTC
I for one would love to see active tanking, being more popular and better than it is now.

But i'm abit concerned on how these changes will do anything else than nerf shield buffer tanks. I'm sure you dev guys has more up in your sleeve, but active tanking need a way bigger boost in order to become even remotely meaningfull.

A good example is the 5% resist bonus on most t2 amarr ships, compared to the 7.5% armor repair bonus on the gallente ships..
If anything the repair bonus's should be doubled as right now 5% is superior in any way or form, better selfrep, better RR ... ect.


in short, you need to give more details on what you want to do with either tanking form... This "small" changes is taken out of contest and alone these changes seem crazy and illogical.

(even though shield buffered tanked ships definitely need a speed reduction)


MORE INFO!.... please.
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-04-23 15:59:29 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
By increasing the bloom on active tanks, it means that shots are more likely to hit, which makes it that much harder to active tank.


this, plus the obvious capacitor problems and the fact that active tanking is in general underpowered and a minor rig tweak won't fix that

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
jm24
CRICE Corp
#31 - 2012-04-23 16:00:09 UTC
This change seems fine
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#32 - 2012-04-23 16:01:54 UTC
Active tanking is about as useful as it can be. PvE and some niche solo fits and that's the ball game. Unless CCP can pull something truly revolutionary out of their bag it's done. It's over. You lost. Move on.

But stop trying to shoehorn active tanking into my life.
Djakku
U Subbed M8
#33 - 2012-04-23 16:02:59 UTC
WHATS MORE is why are you trying to turn this beautiful sandbox game into a class-based model?

Why do you want Amarr and Caldari to be stationary battleballs? Why can't people nano up their Zealots and Drakes?

Why do you want Minmatar and Gallente to be fast moving vessels? (lolwait Gallente?)

I've said it before, I'll say it again; these changes, along with the classification of ships such as "combat ship" "attack vessel" "support ship" and the name changes to modules are just stepping into the direction of World of Spaceships, how long is it gonna be before we chose what class we want to play in the character creator? -.-

tl;dr plz dont nerf my lol100mnautocannonscimitar
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#34 - 2012-04-23 16:03:56 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
This is a poorly thought out change.

People do not actively tank in 99% of PvP situations because having a big buffer is almost always better. This is especially true whenever you have friends with remote reps.

Since sig radius is important to tanking, this change is not going to do anything to encourage people to actively rep in PvP. In PvE, where people do actively rep, this isn't going to change a damn thing, because the predominant rig there is the Capacitor Control Circuit.

I'm sure many people are all for making active tanking more appealing compared to passive tanking, but making a change that nerfs active tanking right out of the gate is not the way to go about it.

pmchem wrote:
Callic Veratar wrote:
By increasing the bloom on active tanks, it means that shots are more likely to hit, which makes it that much harder to active tank.


this, plus the obvious capacitor problems and the fact that active tanking is in general underpowered and a minor rig tweak won't fix that


pmchem they listen to you when you write essays, so write an essay here, tia.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2012-04-23 16:04:09 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
This change is the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking.

Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing.


Rig list:


  • Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction rig
  • Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig

nobody active tanks, ever, besides idiots and pve'ers, I hope this is helps your future balancing decisions
Woo Glin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-04-23 16:04:34 UTC
What about the scythe? I mine in a scythe in 2-k and the rats always are killing my tank. Can it get a tank bonus and a mineing bonus at the same time? Also warp core stabs.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#37 - 2012-04-23 16:05:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Reppyk
My active shield rokh pvp fit has 3 res rigs. This is not a "buffer" nor "passive".

CCP, you are bad and should feel bad.
And the "active shield tank rigs" are very bad btw (but that's [was?] a nice difference between shield and armor).

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Mabego Tetrimon
Spiritus Draconis
#38 - 2012-04-23 16:07:33 UTC
read post #17

"There are really at least three categories of tanking: passive (shield with regen), buffer (armour or shield) AND active (armour or shield). I don't see many passive tanking fits used widely in PvP, but plenty of the latter two."

i would like to add a fourth tank, signature tanking (low sig, high speed)


that, before you (CCP) think of any change get your current status of tanking clear....
i hatechosingnames
Insert Corporation Name Here
#39 - 2012-04-23 16:08:57 UTC
Do CCP even play the game?

Are you making these changes to justify your job or do you actually think this will benefit the game?

If its the former - scrap this ****,
if the later - play the game and realise you should scrap this ****.
erittainvarma
Fistful of Finns
#40 - 2012-04-23 16:09:28 UTC  |  Edited by: erittainvarma
Erhm, you want ships that constantly uses MWD to use also active tank? God thank they all have like ridiculous amounts of extra capacitor lying around!

If you want to make them usable, either you need to cut mwd or shield booster / armor repairer cap usage or make cap boosters much smaller than they are currently. Or otherwise nano roams will be "one fight and then back to home to get more cap boosters".