These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
erittainvarma
Fistful of Finns
#41 - 2012-04-23 16:10:48 UTC
double
BABARR
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#42 - 2012-04-23 16:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: BABARR
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


Stupidityyyyyyyyyyyyyyy by CCP TM.

For gallente :
Old rig :
-My gallente ship are not very fast, fitting them active armor tank just make me a bit more slower, it's not really a problem, the problems are : neutra, efficiency of the logistics, cap issue, and be one volley by alpha fleet, that why you see more passive tank.

New rig :
-My gallente ship going to be only slow, and not "really slow", don't change anything in 90% of fight, the problems are : neutra, efficiency of the logistics, cap issue, AND be one volley by alpha fleet easier cause i have a WTF signature, taking MORE damage cause i have a WTF signature, and the velocity can't compensate that, taking MORE damage cause i have a WTF signature cause in a gallente blasterboat i have to use my MWD a lot.

So "active rig" going to f uck up my "active tanked" hyp/vindic/astarte, gratz CCP.


For minmatar :
Old rig :
-I fit resist rig on my maelstrom to have more resist, i have more sig, but the shield active tank is still nice.

New rig
-I fit resist rig on my maelstrom to have more resist, i have less speed, but no matter, my AC got the range and i don't need speed, and now i don't nerf my sig, it's really cool.

So "passive rig" help more my "active tanked" maelstrom, gratz CCP.

Before making nerf like that, you should think about "why ppl fit passive tank and not active", and trust me, it's not beacause it's nerfing your speed or whatever. And i don't know where you saw gallente boat are "using their speed in combat", we don't play the same game i think...
backtrace
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2012-04-23 16:13:10 UTC
CCP should log in and do some PvP before generating their "balancing" ideas. Mining and listening to empire carebears doesn't count. God, how much more ******** can you go, CCP?
Thecla Elarik
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#44 - 2012-04-23 16:13:46 UTC
do not want
guibio
The BLadius
#45 - 2012-04-23 16:17:03 UTC
It's a bit late for an April Fools cpp ...
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2012-04-23 16:17:16 UTC
I like the speed nerf when fitting buffer rigs. The signature nerf for fitting active tank rigs just doesn't work. I do like to active tank frigates mostly, but never use any rigs that would fall under the type of tank at all.

If you really want to do these changes and have some people even remotely think about active tanking instead of buffer fit, you will simple have to not have any penalties at all on active tank rigs. Buffer tanks and alpha fleets are and will remain king even after these changes. The only way to address that is to have a game changer in how combat works in this game in how it scales with the number of people on the battlefield.

Still, it is worth saying that you guys have your heart in the right place. Thank you for that.
StevieTopSiders
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-04-23 16:17:35 UTC
My one issue is active armor-repair rigs increasing sig. I like the idea of them not slowing down, but armor has always been the sig-tanking solution. vOv

Maybe an armor HP drawback?

Also, CDFE's should not slow as much as Trimarks, imho.

But yeah, I think these are interesting changes to say the least.
Exitar Stormscion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#48 - 2012-04-23 16:18:35 UTC
OH the noob drake and winmatar tears YES YES !
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#49 - 2012-04-23 16:19:14 UTC
this change basically kills tanking rigs completely

also, fyi ccp, no one uses active tank rigs because capacitor control circuits provide a superior benefit in literally every possible scenario

if you deleted all the active tanking rigs in the game tomorrow, no one but margin scammers would even notice
Centra Spike
Perkone
Caldari State
#50 - 2012-04-23 16:19:35 UTC
Is this another stop-gap fix because you guys literally have no idea what you're doing with your game?

Follow us @PLIRC!

Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#51 - 2012-04-23 16:20:34 UTC
Well, it's about time the issues between active/passive tanking are addressed (including the ridiculous nature of all armor rigs restricting movement)! I also like the direction, but there are a few (unwanted?) side effects.

Have you considered Logistics? I assume from the list that their rigs (less cap for activation of remote repair/boost modules) will fall in the "active tanking" category, blowing up the sig size of the already relatively fragile ships that intentionally have small sigs. Shouldn't they get a speed reduction instead?

Generally this obviously won't fix the discrepancy in usefulness between active and passive tanking - I assume you know that. There are more changes coming, preferably in the same expansion?
I guess (very) small scale PVP will get a boost out of using active tanks, it might even extend the gang size in which it can be used, but overall it won't allow for 10+ ship gangs to use active tanking (which is still relatively small).
How are you planning to address this?
zahg
PARABELUM-Project
#52 - 2012-04-23 16:22:08 UTC
CCP joke no?

Maybe you need to go pvp a bit more on sisi or TQ dear GM's and ccp staff....
ROSSLINDEN0
Bastage Network
Snuffed Out
#53 - 2012-04-23 16:22:56 UTC
Why do you guys try so hard to ruin everything... EAT DIKS
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#54 - 2012-04-23 16:27:28 UTC
guibio wrote:
It's a bit late for an April Fools cpp ...
I can hear Shana's tears from there.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Kazanir
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2012-04-23 16:28:44 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.

  • Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig


It is worth noting here that ships using active tanks OVERWHELMINGLY are fitting capacitor control circuit rigs, which have NO penalty and are generally the best choice for a variety of reasons. There are exceptions, but these changes will do very little to change the status quo for people fitting most active tanks.
Tekola
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#56 - 2012-04-23 16:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Tekola
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


Trying to achieve that via rigs and questionable and shifting tanking philosophies might open Pandora's box of doom for eternal fails so why not aim straight to ships and racial bonuses?

First impression was that speed affect tanking, difficult to code and too absract, so impractical game wise.
Second thought was that active AB's/MWD's affect tanking, maybe fixed or mixed resists, amount and regen.


Surely there are also other and better ideas to achieve desired goal.

Tekola
Yanna Karr
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-04-23 16:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Yanna Karr
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


Are you seriously making this big a change without first thoroughly testing it on SiSi and soliciting tons of user feedback? I see the awesome CCP is back.

Edit: I realized this post is in F&I, so I might be wrong and this is not coming with Inferno. Please, PLEASE test this well.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#58 - 2012-04-23 16:39:04 UTC
CCP: Fire this guy and put Soundwave on the job. He actually knows what he's doing. tia (thanks in advance)

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

fofofo

Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#59 - 2012-04-23 16:42:31 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.


I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction.

Perhaps you should first determine what problem you are trying to solve, then generate a list of possible solutions to that problem.

Because what you are doing does not appear to be solving a problem, per se. It appears to be an attempt to force people to utilize under-used items in EVE.

If you wish people to use these under-utilized items, I would look at improving the items (or their effects on specific hulls) themselves, rather than nerfing the items that are being used.

Have you also evaluated how you will handle the issue of rigs already mounted on ships, that suddenly are a detriment to the ship themselves? Those rigs cannot be removed and reused, or resold, and if they are expensive, you are just trashing ISK that your players have spent.

This brings up a tangental thought, removing a rig destroys it, perhaps in doing so it returns a fraction of the salvage used to make it?
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#60 - 2012-04-23 16:43:26 UTC
Yanna Karr wrote:
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


Are you seriously making this big a change without first thoroughly testing it on SiSi and soliciting tons of user feedback? I see the awesome CCP is back.

Edit: I realized this post is in F&I, so I might be wrong and this is not coming with Inferno. Please, PLEASE test this well.


No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily.