These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Will CCP ever make the t2 plates worth fitting?

First post First post
Author
Frothgar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#41 - 2012-05-11 18:54:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Frothgar
Greyscale, any chance you could play around with removing meta levels and changing it to racial effects in order to experiment with adding passive effects?

EG

(Minmatar) Nanofiber plates add only a perportionally tiny amount of mass, least HP gain but plausable for speed setups

(Gallente) Crystaline Carbonate add a moderate HB boost and a small 7.5% bonus to local and RR recieved

(Caldari) Titanium whatever who knows

(Amarr) Rolled Tungstun: Largest HP gain, most mass addition.

T2 variations could include the new change of +15% HP for increased fitting?


Just a thought.

<3
Derth Ramir
Fight The Blob
#42 - 2012-05-11 20:22:40 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
These are likely to be wasted words that no one hears, but still.

Do you realize this is nothing else but a next coil of EHP idiocy? We've had a lot of them before, with each one delivering a powerful blow to EVE previously fun and dinamic, where stuff used to actually explode under fire and where active tanks made much more sense than today.

Upon adopting these changes EHP will increase across the board, dumbing EVE down even further and widening the gap between active and passive tanks applicability even more. How does this comply with you stating you're considering to finally address passive and active tanks? If anything, that's the worst move you could ever come up with - that's like fighting a fire with gasoline.

But things surely don't end up right there. Given tech2 plates have increased requirements over tech1, people will start complaining about some particular ships not having enough grid to utilized those plates. Undoubtedly CCP, as non-resistant to whinning, will consider increasing powergrids all across the board, just like it got increased over time due to proliferation of tech2 mods in general - namely, guns. In general this means that pilots have to make less choices in their setups, basically fitting top-tier stuff and getting away with that. When was it the last time you saw Abaddons using Dual Heavy Pulse lasers or Megathrone with Ions or - God forbid - Electrons!? Only active tank setups require that kind of sacrifices, it's always 'got for top-tier' for passive ones and you display no signs whatsoever that this attitude is gonna change.

Also, I'm finding it extremely funny how CCP Yutterbium submitted a thread with rig changes which made perfect sense and yet then got it retracted due to clueless whinners (who all belonged to a passive tank apologists mob), while you ask no feedback whatsoever and for some reason decide your game knowledge allows you to introduce such an awfully controversal change without asking the playerbase first.

Finally, you have to expect abusers of shield overtanking to come here to whine that the balance between armour and shield gets shifted towards armour. And no doubt you - by your logic - will then increase Shield Extenders bonuses instead of reducing those for plates.

Seriously, dude - go ask CCP Yutterbium to address that. Don't touch it yourself.



Ccp hire this man he Knows his spaceships seriously.

Fight The Blob.

Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-05-11 21:31:05 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
These are likely to be wasted words that no one hears, but still.

Do you realize this is nothing else but a next coil of EHP idiocy? We've had a lot of them before, with each one delivering a powerful blow to EVE previously fun and dinamic, where stuff used to actually explode under fire and where active tanks made much more sense than today.

Upon adopting these changes EHP will increase across the board, dumbing EVE down even further and widening the gap between active and passive tanks applicability even more. How does this comply with you stating you're considering to finally address passive and active tanks? If anything, that's the worst move you could ever come up with - that's like fighting a fire with gasoline.

Also, I'm finding it extremely funny how CCP Yutterbium submitted a thread with rig changes which made perfect sense and yet then got it retracted due to clueless whinners (who all belonged to a passive tank apologists mob), while you ask no feedback whatsoever and for some reason decide your game knowledge allows you to introduce such an awfully controversal change without asking the playerbase first.

Finally, you have to expect abusers of shield overtanking to come here to whine that the balance between armour and shield gets shifted towards armour. And no doubt you - by your logic - will then increase Shield Extenders bonuses instead of reducing those for plates.

Seriously, dude - go ask CCP Yutterbium to address that. Don't touch it yourself.


No-one will listen.

This is just like handing out tasty sweets to children. "Ooh, yes, more please" they say. Then a few years later they may wonder why they're fat fat fatties and their teeth have fallen out, but they're probably too busy demanding free gym memberships and free dentistry.
Viribus
Aurora.
The Initiative.
#44 - 2012-05-11 22:06:08 UTC
CCP should just put out X-Large shield extenders and a Slave analogue for shield tanking, and remove off-grid boosting to drive the final nail into the coffin of active tanking once and for all, since that's pretty clearly their intention.
equincu ocha
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2012-05-12 00:28:17 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
illirdor wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Added ~15% HP to them all this morning, probably won't be on TQ until after the summer though.


why not 20% ?? not a troll...


Because 15% felt like a nice compromise between "make them obviously better than RRT" and "don't make them so powerful they significantly change the balance of the game", pretty much.

This is a bad idea, we don't need more HP (could use a bit less tbh), if you want to make the T2 version better then lower the hp on the others. There is already to much ehp in this game we don't need more.

Baby seal walked into a club

bongpacks
Rules of Acquisition
#46 - 2012-05-12 05:05:46 UTC
"boohoo that ship took an extra 5 seconds to melt with our massive blob because of those overpowered T2 plates" Get over it, things change and I don't see this being a problem at all. People in this thread talking about shield and armor "overtanking" like they expect their enemies to just not fit any tank at all so they pop all the easier. Even if someone went to the extreme and fit all tank and no DPS (what I would consider overtanking) that's their preference and still offers no real advantage over a fit with less EHP and more DPS. With the fitting requirements and mass added from T2 plates most people won't use them anyways I would bet, maybe on battleships where you would have the room and not care so much about mobility but then again battleships are meant to be tanky anyways so what the problem is? A couple thousand more EHP is not going to break anything.
equincu ocha
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#47 - 2012-05-12 11:58:03 UTC
bongpacks wrote:
"boohoo that ship took an extra 5 seconds to melt with our massive blob because of those overpowered T2 plates" Get over it, things change and I don't see this being a problem at all. People in this thread talking about shield and armor "overtanking" like they expect their enemies to just not fit any tank at all so they pop all the easier. Even if someone went to the extreme and fit all tank and no DPS (what I would consider overtanking) that's their preference and still offers no real advantage over a fit with less EHP and more DPS. With the fitting requirements and mass added from T2 plates most people won't use them anyways I would bet, maybe on battleships where you would have the room and not care so much about mobility but then again battleships are meant to be tanky anyways so what the problem is? A couple thousand more EHP is not going to break anything.

Why do you need extra hp then if its not going to let you live any longer or break anything ?

Baby seal walked into a club

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#48 - 2012-05-12 12:33:18 UTC
whats wrong with buffer tanks?
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-05-12 13:18:19 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
whats wrong with buffer tanks?


They're too common, relative to active tanks. This has damaged the game by reducing the diversity of fits and ships seen. The game should be moved away from ubiquitous buffer-fit Drake and Hurricane spam.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#50 - 2012-05-12 14:02:32 UTC
equincu ocha wrote:

This is a bad idea, we don't need more HP (could use a bit less tbh), if you want to make the T2 version better then lower the hp on the others. There is already to much ehp in this game we don't need more.
As long as they lower the EHP of shield buffer mods as well. Otherwise, nerfing armor plates will lead to more shield tanking.
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#51 - 2012-05-12 18:55:47 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
These are likely to be wasted words that no one hears, but still.

Do you realize this is nothing else but a next coil of EHP idiocy? We've had a lot of them before, with each one delivering a powerful blow to EVE previously fun and dinamic, where stuff used to actually explode under fire and where active tanks made much more sense than today.

Upon adopting these changes EHP will increase across the board, dumbing EVE down even further and widening the gap between active and passive tanks applicability even more. How does this comply with you stating you're considering to finally address passive and active tanks? If anything, that's the worst move you could ever come up with - that's like fighting a fire with gasoline.

But things surely don't end up right there. Given tech2 plates have increased requirements over tech1, people will start complaining about some particular ships not having enough grid to utilize those plates, as tech2 plates will be considered pretty much as a standard. Undoubtedly CCP, as non-resistant to whinning, will consider increasing powergrids all across the board, just like it got increased over time due to proliferation of tech2 mods in general - namely, guns. In general this means that pilots have to make less choices in their setups, basically fitting top-tier stuff and getting away with that. When was it the last time you saw Abaddons using Dual Heavy Pulse lasers or Megathrone with Ions or - God forbid - Electrons!? Only active tank setups require that kind of sacrifices, it's always 'go for top-tier' for passive ones and you display no signs whatsoever that this attitude is gonna change.

Also, I'm finding it extremely funny how CCP Yutterbium submitted a thread with rig changes which made perfect sense and yet then got it retracted due to clueless whinners (who all belonged to a passive tank apologists mob), while you ask no feedback whatsoever and for some reason decide your game knowledge allows you to introduce such an awfully controversal change without asking the playerbase first.

Finally, you have to expect abusers of shield overtanking to come here to whine that the balance between armour and shield gets shifted towards armour. And no doubt you - by your logic - will then increase Shield Extenders bonuses instead of reducing those for plates.

Seriously, dude - go ask CCP Yutterbium to address that. Don't touch it yourself.


bumping this so people are more likely to read it
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#52 - 2012-05-24 23:32:59 UTC
Controversy over the changes aside CCP, if you do decide to go ahead with these changes, I strongly urge you to consider adding EHP buffs to faction plates. Fed Navy should probably get 5 or 7.5 percent HP over Rolled Tungsten, and Imperial Navy should probably have the same HP as T2 with reduced mass (perhaps increased to be equal to Rolled Tungsten rather than slightly less).

Without changes like this, faction plates will utterly fall by the wayside, which is a blow to interesting fitting and a reduction in benefits for Faction Warfare.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#53 - 2012-05-25 02:11:20 UTC
I'd be happy if t2 plates had the same hitpoints as meta 4, but a lot less mass, so us suckers who trained gallente can actually buffer tank AND be faster.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.

Kobea Thris
Inquisition FiS Division
#54 - 2012-06-01 21:27:36 UTC
Galphii wrote:
I'd be happy if t2 plates had the same hitpoints as meta 4, but a lot less mass, so us suckers who trained gallente can actually buffer tank AND be faster.



Agreed, much better solution.

.

Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2012-06-03 13:39:13 UTC
Galphii wrote:
I'd be happy if t2 plates had the same hitpoints as meta 4, but a lot less mass, so us suckers who trained gallente can actually buffer tank AND be faster.


That's what the fed navy plate is for.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2012-06-03 15:59:50 UTC
Acac Sunflyier wrote:
Seriously.



or t2 insurance worth bothering with.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#57 - 2012-06-03 17:10:47 UTC
nice, ccp failing again....
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#58 - 2012-06-03 18:39:38 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Added ~15% HP to them all this morning, probably won't be on TQ until after the summer though.

I know that normally people like to complain that CCP just does not listen to people. But I was very impressed by this. Thank you.

Also could we maybe try the new stats out on SiSi to see how this would effect fights between armor ships and shield ships?

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#59 - 2012-06-04 22:58:22 UTC
So that they might consider buffing shield overtanking, too?

*sigh*

Just as expected.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Eternal Error
Doomheim
#60 - 2012-06-05 01:41:45 UTC
+1 for not having another buff to EHP. Work with the mass or nerf the EHP on the others, but do not increase the armor bonus for t2 plates.