Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Even with 50% outside of web range, you are very loose with the numbers.

Problem of blasters is not web range, they have the dps for this range ; the problem is that any armor rig kill you speed so much that it''s very difficult to go through. And active tank would like some love too : there is definitely not enough advantages to active tank over buffer. Problem on this is you cannot buff active tank without gimping pve and active tank bonused ships (myrmidon/hyperion for the most known of them).

Fitting requirement of active tank may be explored, but I think the rigs are very responsible for this, with buffer rigs having absolutely no drawbacks for their benefits Maybe nerf total PG/CPU or capacitor for armor/shield buffer rigs (and 10-15% would be good, swap the drone rig penalty for the speed ones if you want ; and resist rigs are actually buffer rigs, active tank only need active tank rigs).

Of course, active tank is not meant to be competitive in fleet, but there must be incentive to use active tank over buffer in small gangs.

Good Changes are good. Keep up the good work CCP.

***warning**** ***warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning******

controversial opinion incoming like it or don't I don't really care it's my opinion

***warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning****



Passive and active tank, this is something that I think is very misleading. I think more what you should be looking to balance is overall HP versus self repair. Take the Drake for example completely passive fit can have us up to a 150 to 250 peak shield recharge but it's not active tank.

Modules allow you to repair your own ship you either shield or armor should de-buffed your amount of HP and but take less capacitor or fitting requirement. That would be the easiest way to balance the problem you're referring to. Shield boosters alike not being useful in PVP.

I disagree. Passive tanks will just be sitting ducks, where Active tanks will become easier to hit. Lose/lose. What's the point of this?

Passive Shield Tanks: Boost Shield Recharge at cost of increased power requirements. (Uses more Cap)
Passive Armor Tanks: Boost Armor Repair Rate at cost of increased Sig radius.

Active Shield Tank: Boost Shield Charge per Cycle at cost of increased power requirements.
Active Armor Tank: Boost Armor repair rate at cost of increased Sig radius and CPU requirements. (Smaller % though)

Something maybe like this?

Rig's that enhance Passive tank bonuses should require power. Shields = Energy usage. Why does this affect speed? Perhaps for Armor Rig's, shield no.

Active shield tanks require modules to repair said shield, and in turn use power. Boosts to Active shield Rig boosts should require more Grid, CPU, or maybe a small percentage to both.

Agree with many of the comments that suggest that active tanking needs looking at as a whole. Still that is not a reason to not iterate on the rigs.

How about Penalties to the layer below the active layer punishing the ship more should the active tank fail.

Modifying ship internal structures to provide conduit access for Armour repair energy wastage to be fed back through the ships engines have allowed the removal of the speed disadvantages provided by previous Armour repair enhancements

Active Armour Rigs - Penalty to Structure
+Sig reducing rig
+Rig to reduce power needs of armour repairer’s Low calibration so does not compete with ACR

Recent advancements have allowed the modification of armour surface layers to better absorb the energy residue produced by enhancing certain shield capabilities, this modification results in slightly decreased surface armour strength while allowing for better shield boosting performance.

Active Shield Rigs - Penalty to Armour
+weak Omni shield resist rig
+Rig to reduce CPU


Passive Shield and Armour Rigs stay as is.

At first this sounded crazy, but it isn't really a half bad idea, I think to be implented right, Gallente would need a fair bit of cap buffer and minmatar cap recharge. But i have long been a proponent of the idea if you want to run your mad nonstop you should need to fit a cap booster so that you do indeed have limits, this is really a more elegant solution to that issue.

This is a terrible idea. Ships that rely on speed and range control already rely a lot on running a MWD because ABs are too slow for nearly every ship. You want these ships to run active tanks while running a MWD to keep their range? Great, but where's the cap going to come from?

Are you going to boost minnie/gal cap levels and recharge? Doubt it.
Are you going to give all "speed" ships additional bonuses to active tanking? Doubt it.
Are you going to reduce cap booster size? Doubt it.

The current rig penalty system works just fine. If you want to make active tanking viable, you need to fix active tanking by itself (and not just try to kill off the alternative), but that won't be easy if the current paradigm of damage is kept. Active tanks can keep up with a limited amount of enemies and then they fail horribly (or get neuted to death), and they also eat massive amounts of capacitor. You can't fix the first without completely changing the damage model and to fix the second you would need to massively reduce the amount of capacitor required for active tanking.

Nerfing what is one of the few viable solo vs small gang (or small gang vs. larger gang) combat options (go fast, carry buffer to soak up damage, MWD a lot, hit at range and avoid being caught because being caught is death) is not going to make PvP better. It will only make it worse. The really large fleets probably won't care either way, but small gangs get screwed.

Now, if you could run an active tank while remaining mobile and without consuming totally insane amounts of cap boosters, then the idea of "speed is active, slow is buffered" is probably more or less viable. At the current cap consumption levels for active tanks, that's just impossible and should be thrown out of the nearest airlock.

Finally, buffer will slow you down (thus make it easier to catch you and kill you) and an active tank will bloom your sig (which will make it easier to hit you, and thus make it even harder to active-tank). Who the heck thought this was a good idea?

Rethink this, please, before you screw up, badly.

Just my 2c.

Rig calibration costs wonky for CDFE and Trimarks? Agreed.

Compare:

CDFE, calibration 50, shield +15%
Missile Calefaction Catalyst, calibration 200, damage +10% (stacking penalised)
Missile Loading Bay Accelerator, calibration 200, rof +10% (stacking penalised)

Large Shield Extender II, shield +2625, med slot
Ballistic Control System II, rof+10.5%, damage+10%, low slot (stacking penalised)

Two DPS rigs fill your calibration, but give less bonus than a single BCS II.

A single CDFE uses almost no calibration, but gives as many hit points as an LSE II if your total shield HP is 17500. That's quite a bit, but a buffer rokh with twin LSE II has 17187.5 at Shield Management V. Throw on a second CDFE and you're way over the break-even point, without stacking penalty, and with 300 calibration to spare on a T1 ship.


That said, there is a sense where favouring tank over gank makes for a more interesting game, in that it gives more time for people to react and change strategy. Glass cannons is a lot more boring that extended cut and thrust.

---

Some thoughts on buffer vs cap:


* Buffer:

Scales with DPS, cap lite, unaffected by time, no action required

* Active:

Twin balancing act:
- repair vs time
- repair vs cap
Requires action
Weakness vs alpha


Possible changes and consequences:

(1) Active tanks require almost no cap if not damaged.

Solves lag attention issues. "Easy mode"? AFK missioning easier.


(2) Limit regen rate primarily by cap.

Even single repper can repair lots of damage, if it can pull enough cap.
"Active tanking" becomes "cap tanking".
- does this give Caldari and Minmatar advantage due to cap-less weapons?


(3) Damage mitigation module

Example: rather than apply damage directly, absorbs all damage, and then releases (say) 30% current store + 100 hp every second. Turns alpha into DPS.

Makes logistics more powerful, since they only have to match 30% DPS, not all of it.
Workaround: disable remote assistance while module active.

Cap requirements? Small? BIg? Small then big under fire? Low cap is probably OK, because ship still needs to deal with the inbound damage (using cap-hungry reppers).

Feels very "gamey". Does this become mandatory for any active repper? If effectively mandatory, should it be just rolled into the repper itself? Alternatively, could multiple modules be used and slow down the roll-out rate?

Also helps protect buffer tanks vs alpha - you still might take killing damage, but will have a short while to live before it actually affects you. But as long as it prevents remote rep, a purely buffer tank ship will still die as damage bleeds into it.

I don't really like it.

At least fix damage & ROF rigs first! (calibration, effect amount, they are just too underpowered and hard to fit atm) also, make it so that resist rigs give less penalty or no penalty at all compared to HP rigs. (Or maybe 50% of both penalties?)

Also why not introduce stacking to HP rigs finally? And maybe just remove all penalties from active rigs? (Or just remove the speed penalty from active armor rigs?)


But IMO active tanking might need other kinds of help...

I like it. Minmatar ships should not be able to so easily fit Shield Extenders without some kind of penalty. I like the speed penalty to passive tanking. Also a nerf to 100mn Tengus which is a good thing.