These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#201 - 2012-04-24 01:38:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
I do think this is a pretty interesting idea, and it could very well work. At the very least, I have a nitpick:


  • Resist rigs should not be lumped in entirely with buffer. Resist rigs are frequently used in fast and/or active-tanked ships; for example, the Cyclone and the Cynabal. Resistances are useful for both active tanks AND buffer tanks. They should give half-sized penalties to both signature AND speed, more accurately representing that they are halfway between the two tanking styles.


Edit: If you are complaining that "ohh but now my active tank will be harder to hit" -- please. That's not right at all. If you increase your speed by 10% but increase your signature radius by the same amount, you're just as hard to hit as you were before, and you're more mobile. Speed is always the preference.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Lord Aliventi
Minmatar Fleet Logistics
Minmatar Fleet Associates
#202 - 2012-04-24 01:53:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Aliventi
To be honest i don't like these changes for a few reasons:

1. I get the feeling you are trying to stuff an entire race of ships in to a narrow focus. But we don't play like that. I understand the active cyclones, feroxes, and triple rep myrms. Those are great solo ships. However, it's unfair to tell new people "we use passive tanked ships with logi in our fleets. So i need you to stop training for a Hurricane and instead train for a Drake. " Why can't all races active and passive tank? I get the role playing. But there is a point at which role playing doesn't mesh with what we actually fly.

2. My t2 fit drake is slow. With the MWD on I can go almost 1200 m/s with a sig of 2.5 KM (Think Archon. Only bigger). So I could do with a significant sig radius reduction. However, I don't think velocity is the way to nerf it. And vagas, drams, cynabals are known to be some of the fastest, meanest, shield tanked ships around. The nano-nerf sucked for a lot of players. let's not make it worse please.

3. Boosting active tanking is great. I would love to see more active tanking. Sig radius makes it far easier to lock and tie down the people trying to solo. I think that would be counter productive to the goal.

I love the willingness to change what may player never even considered as possible to change and asking for players feedback. Keep it up.
Powers Sa
#203 - 2012-04-24 02:07:50 UTC
Please don't own my cynabal and vagabond nano roams with this bologna.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
BrokenBC
no tax's are us
#204 - 2012-04-24 02:26:31 UTC
I really see this as a step towards a class system.Please if I wanted to play WoW i would.If some ships arnt working and dont get used scrap them or rethink them, but please continue to allow us to decide how we fit and use our ships.Thanks.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#205 - 2012-04-24 03:17:58 UTC
shield rigs should effect cap regen rate or something cap related, in the vein of shield power relays also gimping cap

trimark and core defense rigs should be increased in config cost

capacitor control circuit should be nerfed, and semiconductor memory cells and egress port maximizers should be buffed

hull rigs, sensor strength and thermodynamic rigs should be added
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#206 - 2012-04-24 03:25:43 UTC
So my rokh is apparently too fast at the moment, and must be made slower.
Sigras
Conglomo
#207 - 2012-04-24 03:52:09 UTC
Djakku wrote:
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.


and this doesnt seem like a problem to you? Not only do you get range dictation and the ability to disengage because your ship is fast, but you also get a huge buffer and extra damage mods/tracking enhancers?
And the penalty to this, a larger sig and thus being easier to target/hit doesnt matter at all because you always have the ability to disengage; you can always just run away.

Djakku wrote:
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.

which is why they want to change the current state of the game in order to bring the shield extender rigs in line with the other rigs . . . i dont see the problem here.

Djakku wrote:
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.

no, theyre suggesting that you need to be more creative with your fits if you want to have all the things.

Consider fitting Power Diag's in your lows instead of tracking enhancers, then to increase your range, fit ambient extension rigs, the PDS even have a nice side effect of countering the grid drawback of the projectile rigs

Djakku wrote:
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.

And you just handed me a perfect example of why speed + buffer needs a nerf. Look at the section i emphasized in your quote. If you were in any armor tanking ship, that prhase would read "how long do I have to kill something before these lolheavymissiles force me to die you never have to commit to a fight when you have speed. You gain the ability to run away, you lose the ability to have as large a buffer.
Sigras
Conglomo
#208 - 2012-04-24 03:57:03 UTC
BrokenBC wrote:
I really see this as a step towards a class system.Please if I wanted to play WoW i would.If some ships arnt working and dont get used scrap them or rethink them, but please continue to allow us to decide how we fit and use our ships.Thanks.

At a base level CCP has always decided what ships are "supposed to do"

Please describe for me a ship that is a clean slate that doesnt have any bias about what it's "supposed to do" . . .

What would that look like?
it wouldnt have slots because having low slots might indicate its an armor tanker
it wouldnt have bonuses because that defines what it's supposed to do.
it wouldnt have weapons because that might indicate its a combat ship
it wouldnt have a cargo hold because that might indicate that its a transport ship

I have no problem with the more defined "ship lines" as long as they dont make it so those ships can ONLY do those things.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#209 - 2012-04-24 04:08:33 UTC
Sigras wrote:
ambient extension rigs
Kenshin Tzestu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2012-04-24 04:30:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshin Tzestu
I like the changes proposed by CCP and think they would make the game better. Right now it is clear that a large shield buffer is better than any other tanking option. With a shield buffer you get a massive tank and some degree of limited active tank at no real cost (through passive regen). Shield rigs and passive tanking are a complete no brainer. The proposed changes won't completely balance out active tanking, but are a step in the right direction.

A great change and a good sign for the direction of the game.

I hope CCP has the balls to ignore all the whiners who are content with the unbalanced and boring status quo and can't understand how to adapt to positive change. MMO's seem to have a lot of whiners, the amount of tears in this thread alone is pretty epic.
Qicia
Mercurialis Inc.
Goonswarm Federation
#211 - 2012-04-24 04:36:19 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
The blind swap of penalties seems like it will cause more problems than it will fix. Here's an alternate suggestion, with explanations attached:

All Harder Rigs increase sig radius - the ship is more solid and shiny to targeting
All Active Tanking Rigs increase active tank module CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful

Shield Extender Rigs decrease max velocity - thicker shields absorb more thrust
Shield Fitting Rigs reduce the shield hp provided by the extenders - less power means less shield projected
Shield Passive Recharge Rigs increase sig radius - rapid generation of shields is pops more

Armor Plate Rigs decrease max agility - heavier ships are harder to turn
Armor Remote Rep Rigs increase the remote rep CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful

Salvage Tackle Rigs should be under Astronautic or Electronics Superiority Rigs or something, they don't make sense here. And change them to reduce shield amount - sensors can get a better reading with less interference.



This makes more sense.

Q
Dorn Val
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#212 - 2012-04-24 05:28:16 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
[quote]
By making neuts less attractive (either by nerfing them or making other options viable) you'd by extension boost active reps.


This. Very irritating to run into a Hurricane with two medium neuts when you're a laser user, and just about everyone is packing at least one neut these days. Rare for me to be flying a ship that doesn't have a cap booster...

Sandbox: An enclosed area filled with sand for children engaged in open-ended, unstructured, imaginative play. Also a place for cats to urinate and defecate...
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2012-04-24 06:24:47 UTC
This thread will lead to interesting things.

I love love love where this game is headed

Hello, hello again.
Nevermore Akiga
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#214 - 2012-04-24 06:34:49 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
The blind swap of penalties seems like it will cause more problems than it will fix. Here's an alternate suggestion, with explanations attached:

All Harder Rigs increase sig radius - the ship is more solid and shiny to targeting
All Active Tanking Rigs increase active tank module CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful

Shield Extender Rigs decrease max velocity - thicker shields absorb more thrust
Shield Fitting Rigs reduce the shield hp provided by the extenders - less power means less shield projected
Shield Passive Recharge Rigs increase sig radius - rapid generation of shields is pops more

Armor Plate Rigs decrease max agility - heavier ships are harder to turn
Armor Remote Rep Rigs increase the remote rep CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful

Salvage Tackle Rigs should be under Astronautic or Electronics Superiority Rigs or something, they don't make sense here. And change them to reduce shield amount - sensors can get a better reading with less interference.

+1
Vedje
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#215 - 2012-04-24 07:24:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vedje
My piece of mind:
Vedje
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#216 - 2012-04-24 07:25:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Vedje
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno.

It would be 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



EDIT: As mentioned here, this is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has started, this is just a concept that was passed along and that we wanted to discuss early on before proceeding further. Tweaked first paragraph on this post to reflect that, apologies for the confusion.


Dear Ytterrible

I believe it must have been very early in the morning on Island, and someone drunk all the coffee when you was
ordered to rebalance tanking, because with all due respect this is an idea which seems not to have been completely thought
trough.

I wish i knew reasons behind this particular move, i am sure you have damn good reasons for tank rebalancing, the game is indeed very much out off balance in many aspects. Rebalancing however should be aimed at making ships somewhat equal on the field, not to widen the gap even further!


Yes gallente rebalancing act failed, it failed miserably, gallente are still nowhere to be seen, not even in pve
so please, go back to the drawing board, rethink gallente, do not drag the rest off us pilots down with you!


To elaborate:

Active tank is reserved for ratting, in short: for fending off slow and stabile incoming dps. In such role it is working completely
in according to expectations. Active tanks vary in cost, depending on their purpose, a system that worked well so far, however
clearly favoured one specific race, namely the caldari. As such caldari are capable of deploying very cheap and affordable non speed limiting tanks, while many other races in order to keep their dps need to place shield tank as well.
Despite the fact that shield tanking came as caldari's "natural" ability, it was very uncommon for anyone to fit an active tank
for pvp roles, even caldari. To everyone with common sense this will indicate that active tank becomes irrelevant when it comes to pvp.

Passive tank on the other end is really meant to buy time, precious time needed to annihilate the enemy, or die trying. In such
scenario larger ships have larger tanks, smaller ships smaller. Therefore pve & pvp tanking is something that works fine as it is now!


On the other end, let's pursue your idea for a while.
Forcing pvp ships to use active tank you not only eliminate the role of Logistic ships, which in such case would no longer
be off any relevance in the game pvp or pve, but you also lower the overall defence capabilities of each and every ships that
will have to deal with such a tank! Gallente which will be effected by this will then without a doubt be the worst pvp class one could pick, and i am sure that many of gallente pilots will either request skill points reset or leave the game. That is a bad thing and i am sure your ceo won't be happy!

Just imagine the heavy cap usage tank used on ship that has heavy cap usage already due to the nature of its weapon systems,
coupled with cap intensive propulsion which gallente need in order to get in their pitiful range. Sounds good to you?

Imagine for a minute heavy alpha fleet, such as maelstrom fleet for instance wrecking havoc on enemies that have no chance
now, dealing only with the ships natural buffer means that fleet needed to one-shoot-kill just got reduced in size.

Both of this scenarios indicate a big shift in the game mechanics in a way that certain races/ships will again have the upper hand while the rest will be struggling now to keep up.
Nicki O
ChickenTime 2
#217 - 2012-04-24 07:47:24 UTC
if you want to fix active tanking then change the way repairers work or add a new kind of repairer.

proposal:
dont let them cycle for x armor/shield every x seconds but give them a buffer they can repair every x seconds if needed.

for example a repairer with 1000armor buffer every 10 secs. (random numbers)
ship gets alphad for 1000 damage - damage is instantly repaired
ship gets 100 incomming dps - damage is constantly repaired over the 10 secs
ship gets alphad for 1200 damage - 200 damage to the armor, damage is repaired after 10 secs but the buffer is now only 800hp
ship gets 200 incoming dps - buffer is depleted after 5 secs and the rest of the time the ship gets damage. ship gets repaired after 10 secs but has no buffer left for the next 10 secs.


that would be an easy way to balance active vs passive tanking. because you have 3 variables you can easily balance.
passive buffer amount
active buffer amount
active cycle time

obviously active buffer amount < passive buffer amount, but has not to be that much smaller, maybe 70%?
plate with 1000armor vs a repairer with 700armor every 10 secs.

the active buffer would make them more viable in medium/larger fleets because logistics get a chance to lock them and help with reps.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#218 - 2012-04-24 07:47:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
The simplest solution is:

- Shield extender rigs add shield HP and reduce armour HP
- Shield resist rigs increase shield resists and reduce armor resists
- Shield boost rigs eat Grid (or increase booster module cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)

- Trimarks add armour HP and reduce shield HP
- Armour resists rigs increase armour resists and reduce shield resists
- Armour rep rigs eat CPU (or increase repper cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)

- Passive shield regeneration is removed (has no armour counterpart, not sure if this is needed due to niche role of PST)

Increase should always be slightly more than reduction. Essentially you just take from your secondary tank and add it to your primary tank, playing on your ship's strenghts.

This removes the whole problem of balancing the current secondary penalties, leaving only balancing of the ships themselves.


(Edited for better active tank penalties)

.
VoZzZic
Fallen.Society
#219 - 2012-04-24 07:50:09 UTC
further boost of 100mn shet, gj
Also it would be that passive tank going to be slowered -> nerfed (all nano-shield ships take a hit) and all active tank...is going to get almost nothing because it either a bs class who doesn't care about its sig or it's mwd-fitted underbs class who usually moving with it's mwd and mostly doesn't care about it's sig as well.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#220 - 2012-04-24 08:32:11 UTC
Does crying people here ever flown in an active tanked pvp ship ? I really doubt so...

Active tanking can make wonders in some cases, just look at frigates fit, or cyclones, or myrmidon, or hyperion. Buff it, and not bonused ship may be able to use it then. These changes are a gift to small scale pvp which will now have a choice between active tank and buffer.

If active tank *look* so bad, it's only because it currently don't have enough advantages over buffer in regards of their drawbacks. And seeing all the tears here, reason why is obvious : shield buffer have *no* drawback (sig penalty is not a drawback one can't overcome) while shield active tank eat your cap ; armor buffer have the same drawback than active one without using cap.
Nerfing buffer and buffing ative tank will even the things out : *that* is balance.
Now, minmatar/angel should learn to manage their cap.

BTW, complaining the gaming is turning into world of spaceship while actually flying ship which don't require *any* capacitor management is very blind talk.
Right now, shield buffer have tank, speed, firepower and cap invulnerability ; it's about time they make some fitting choices...