These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The New Armor Plates on SISI
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#1 - 2012-07-14 02:00:28 UTC
Kudos on introducing the new T2 armor plates on SISI, it's about time that the T2 version was at least comparable to rolled tungsten, it will be interesting to see if the increased armor bonus will offset the higher fitting requirements.

With that said, the faction variations could use some similar love. I don't think they necessarily have to match the total armor bonus of the T2 version, but they should at the very least have more than their meta 4 counterpart. Also I would suggest making the fitting requirements for the meta 6 and 7 plates somewhere between the the meta 4 and 5, with a greater amount of variation. This would create a greater degree of ship fitting flexibility and create a slightly greater demand for meta 6 and 7 armor plates.

Here's some proposed stats for the 1600mm variants:

1600mm Reenforced Rolled Tungsten Plate: 4200 hp, 2,750,000 kg mass, 28 CPU, 500 PG (current stats on SISI)
1600mm Reenforced Steel Plate II: 4800 hp, 3,750,000 kg mass, 33 CPU, 575 PG (current stats on SISI)
Fed. Navy 1600mm Reenforced Steel Plate: 4400 hp, 2,000,000 kg mass, 30 CPU, 525 PG (meta 7)
Imp. Navy 1600mm Reenforced Steel Plate: 4600 hp, 2,250,000 kg mass, 30 CPU, 525 PG (meta 7)
Syndicate 1600mm Reenforced Steel Plate: 4200 hp, 2,250,000 kg mass, 28 CPU, 500 PG (meta 6)

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-07-14 02:18:17 UTC
Hooray for HP inflation!

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#3 - 2012-07-14 11:32:16 UTC
This should balance out nicely. Shields get ASBs, armor gets better plates.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#4 - 2012-07-14 23:36:50 UTC
Give us the armour ASB equiv, and tweak the things. Then accept tier3s aren't perfectly balanced first time, then balance Mach/Tengu/Drake/Cane/ECM, etc, etc

Shields already get buffer which regenerates significantly, active tanking from cap use, and ASBs. And rigs & HP modules that only increase sig rather than slowing you down. And Crystals. You do remember some ships are bonused just for active armour tanking, right? Not resistances (which also helps buffer and getting RR).
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2012-07-15 07:50:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
The mass difference between Rolled Tungsten and tech 2 is still ... massive.

2,750,000 kg vs 3,750,000 kg

A Brutix with MWD goes 1019 m/s with a tech 2 plate and 1059 m/s with Rolled Tungsten.

It should be at most 3,250,000 kg for tech 2 in my opinion.

Edit: the Brutix goes 1189 m/s without a plate... how about reducing the mass on all plates somewhat CCP? The speed difference between plated and unplated is substantial and more significant than the signature size increase by shield extenders.
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#6 - 2012-07-15 09:13:11 UTC
i really don't think difference between plates should be armor hp, or at least difference should be much less significant.

i am pretty happy on hp my armor buffered ships have, only thing which really has been bothering me is that tech 2 plates are useless crap since their fitting reqs are way too much. even then it's understandable all other module types work pretty much same way except shield boosters which were nerfed in odd way for lol who knows why.

problem my armor buffered ships have is not hitpoints so why would anyone boost that anyway. i can already have crazy hp with armor plates why more. im not going to comment these weird asb's they're obviously not balanced yet, not that you can or should compare shield and armor tanking anyway.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#7 - 2012-07-16 13:00:51 UTC
Problem: buffer tanking is much more popular than active tanking
Solution: boost armour buffers

:ccp:
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#8 - 2012-07-16 14:31:03 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Problem: buffer tanking is much more popular than active tanking
Solution: boost armour buffers

:ccp:


In fleet PvP yes, in solo or skirmish PvP, active tanking is very viable. Given the increased mass and fitting requirements the raw increase in armor total does come at a substantial price. Given a lot of current plated setups already push the PG and CPU limits, it will be interesting to see how often the new T2 plate is used.

This thread is more about adjusting the meta 6 and 7 armor plates to make them: A. more versatile, and B. justify the rarity and cost relative to the new T2 plates. Right now, faction armor resist mods are commonly used, but the plates are used very infrequently in lieu of the meta 4 plates.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#9 - 2012-07-16 14:37:35 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
The mass difference between Rolled Tungsten and tech 2 is still ... massive.

2,750,000 kg vs 3,750,000 kg

A Brutix with MWD goes 1019 m/s with a tech 2 plate and 1059 m/s with Rolled Tungsten.

It should be at most 3,250,000 kg for tech 2 in my opinion.

Edit: the Brutix goes 1189 m/s without a plate... how about reducing the mass on all plates somewhat CCP? The speed difference between plated and unplated is substantial and more significant than the signature size increase by shield extenders.


If you're worried about the speed, why not go with a dual rep brutix rather than using a plate? If you're with a fleet you can usually rely on tackle to hold down targets, so closing distance isn't as much of an issue.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-07-17 13:01:49 UTC
Fidelium Mortis wrote:
If you're worried about the speed, why not go with a dual rep brutix rather than using a plate? If you're with a fleet you can usually rely on tackle to hold down targets, so closing distance isn't as much of an issue.


I just picked a ship at random to do a comparison on the effects of tanking modules on ship speed. It could have been a Badger for all I care.
Lili Lu
#11 - 2012-07-17 14:32:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Gypsio III wrote:
Problem: buffer tanking is much more popular than active tanking
Solution: boost armour buffers

Problem: shield tanking was fine, indeed a preference for shield tanking in small gangs and large fleets existed
Solution: introduce a new op active shield tanking mod to boost shield tanking even more

:ccp:

Added to your post.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-07-17 14:42:13 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Problem: buffer tanking is much more popular than active tanking
Solution: boost armour buffers

Problem: shield tanking was fine, indeed a preference for shield tanking in small gangs and large fleets existed
Solution: introduce a new op active shield tanking mod to boost shield tanking even more

:ccp:

Added to your post.


This isn't the logic behind this.

The tech 2 armor plates were worse than meta4, changing that was long overdue.
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#13 - 2012-07-17 14:54:34 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

The tech 2 armor plates were worse than meta4, changing that was long overdue.



Thanks. Let's keep this on topic. The change to the T2 plate does make them an alternative to the Meta 4 plate, while before the T2 plates were written off since they were a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Now, the question is, what can be done to update the Meta 6 & 7 variants so that they are desirable. I don't think the way to go is to match the total armor amount of the updated T2 plates, but rather make them desirable by increasing their versatility.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#14 - 2012-07-27 23:50:40 UTC
On battleship level both fitting requirements and mass addition are INSIGNIFICANT things.

Also, I wrote a summarizing post quite a while ago and surely no one from CCP ever bothered to give us a reply. Gonna link it:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1284165#post1284165

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Jiji Hamin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-07-28 00:27:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jiji Hamin
Fidelium Mortis wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

The tech 2 armor plates were worse than meta4, changing that was long overdue.



Thanks. Let's keep this on topic. The change to the T2 plate does make them an alternative to the Meta 4 plate, while before the T2 plates were written off since they were a hindrance rather than a benefit.

Now, the question is, what can be done to update the Meta 6 & 7 variants so that they are desirable. I don't think the way to go is to match the total armor amount of the updated T2 plates, but rather make them desirable by increasing their versatility.


abbadon buff is for abaddons. anyway, i agree that faction plates also need some love. leaving them as they are would be a joke. they would be the most expensive and uncategorically the worst.

Daneel Trevize wrote:
Give us the armour ASB equiv, and tweak the things. Then accept tier3s aren't perfectly balanced first time, then balance Mach/Tengu/Drake/Cane/ECM, etc, etc

Shields already get buffer which regenerates significantly, active tanking from cap use, and ASBs. And rigs & HP modules that only increase sig rather than slowing you down. And Crystals. You do remember some ships are bonused just for active armour tanking, right? Not resistances (which also helps buffer and getting RR).


consider getting a clue before posting.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#16 - 2012-07-30 15:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikuno
The numbers for 1600mm plates seem a little off. CPU for meta 1 -26tf, meta 2 - 27tf, meta 3 - 29tf, meta 4 - 28 tf. Meta 3 and 4 seem to have been reversed.

As for where these changes leave the faction plates, well the kindest I can be is to say they're virtually worthless. Ignoring the Bailey, we have Syndicate and Federation with the exact same 33tf, 575MW fittings as t2. The mass reduction advantages that they have is already barely worth their use, but with the t2 hp buff they have truly become pointless to use. The Imperial plate has the slightly lower 30tf fitting, but again this hardly makes them worth the cost for the now lower hp in return for the reduced mass.

As for the Syndicate version, which is a pirate version and therefore might be expected to be better than it's navy counterparts according to the standard precepts of Eve, it suffers the fate of being arguably the worst, with the poorest fitting of all the plates and falling short of the mass benefit of the Federation version. It really has no purpose at all. If plates are being reviewed then I think it would make sense to balance them all at the same time, rather in the way ships are being done, to do this piecemeal is to invite the same problem the ship classes currently suffer. Good practice should be applied to all rebalancing.

Whilst I'd disagree with the suggestions of the OP ( I would have Syndicate become meta 8 and be the best version, with Federation topping Imperial for performance whilst Imperial continues with it's fitting advantages), I do agree that all should be looked at before any changes hit TQ.

Also for reference with the mass benefits between the best and worst 1600mm plates (fed navy at 2,062,500kg and t1 at 3,750,000kg);

Taking a brutix with a 10mn mwd there is an 8.3% advantage in mass cost. Appreciable but not great.
Taking a megathron with a 100mn mwd there is a 1.1% advantage in mass cost. Insignificant in my opinion.

When a 100mn mwd weighs 50,000,000 kg then the saving of 1,687,500kg for a faction plate over a standard plate is without any benefit what-so-ever. Sadly plate mass reduction was another unseen victim of the changes to reduce oversized propulsion leading to nano-based issues by increasing the mass of propulsion mods. Hopefully a thorough review would go some way to restoring the benefit of a the faction plates.