Ships & Modules

Thought that was an interesting question - I have my opinion on the issue but don't want to influence the thread to much from the get-go.

However, with the introduction of ASBs and ARSHs respectively, CCP obviously don't want to equalize, but further diverge them.

I have never read or heard anything clear about their goal for each tanking type, though.


So thoughts what they shoiuld be, what CCP should aim for, snippets of information? Post them here.

Thanks - actually I've missed that post. Quite interesting read although I've never perceived the mods hitting times as much of a problem personally.

However CCP have to be careful with this one - e.g. regarding the Incursus, it was obviously balanced towards current mechanics as it tanks pretty fine - reducing cycle times may imbalance it.

Agree on the mass issue - especially rig penalties - aside from ASBs and ARSCHs being tweaked.

(to those getting it: that was not a freudian slip).

I think what they should have done was introduce ASBs as armor modules. Yes, we'd still have an Exile + Legion problem but we wouldn't have crystals on top of it. Besides, I ******* hate crystals and I'd love an excuse to let my speed implants get some use. :)

-Liang

Ed: Also, oversized mods wouldn't be as much of a pain in the ass.

I dont mind that there are differences between the two tank types. In fact, I think its cool. I think CCP is on the right track with ASB (but small nerf mentioned below). They need to tweak the armor ones though.

So keeping with the theme of shield = light/skirmish and armor = heavy/endurance, make changes something like:

1. Decrease cap usage of RAH and increase the amount/speed at which it shifts. I like the idea behind this module, but it's too slow and cap hungry to be of much use now. There is no reason to use it over a second EANM right now, and little to use it over a third. These changes will make armor tanks stronger the longer the fight goes. Endurance.

2. Change the armor rig penalties to something else. Sig radius would be ok. This is just a giant penalty to Gallente ships.

3. Keep it so armor still needs to rely on a separate cap booster module. But significantly reduce the amount of cap they use (like half). This makes armor more cap friendly to allow for longer endurance, easier use of neuts, more resistance to neuts, and helps with the fact that traditional armor races use blasters and lasers. Endurance.

4. Increase the length of time armor mods can over heat or have higher module hit points, or reduce the amount of heat damage they cause. Endurance.

5. Reduce the fitting requirements slightly (allows for fitting of additional reps/cap boosters/larger weapons/plates). Heavy.

6. Increase the rep amounts or speed slightly - not on par with ASBs - but more than now. OR, increase the amount of benefit you get from overheating, and allow them to overheat for longer. I can see the need for double rep setups - having to fit triple reps is kinda silly though. Heavy/Endurance.

So, the above changes would make armor ships be a bit hardier, more resistant to neuting/better able to use neuts, fit heavier weapons and have longer 'staying power' with increased overheating ability. It also makes sense because the traditional armor races use the two most cap hungry weapons.

7. For shield - I like ASB, but the dual oversized setups are kinda crazy. So to reduce (but not eliminate) those options - increase the fitting requirements of ASB slightly so you REALLY have to gimp your fit (smaller weapons, less nos/neut or more fitting mods) to fit 2 of them. I think that would go a long way to balance the dual oversize fits we are seeing. If you want to make something crazy with an obscene tank - you still can - but good luck fitting weapons to keep you in your normal 'DPS class'. Would reduce their abilities to fit full-size nos/nets too - again keeping with the reduced endurance but skirmish mentality.

I dunno - just some ideas. I like the differences between tank styles - but they need to be balanced now.

Shield would continue to be the quick strike race but still have a good active tank option. Armor would be the heavies with longer staying power.

I am just glad CCP has commented on the issue finally. Sounds like they are working on it. Go go CCP.

Edit: autocorrect sucks.

1. CCP will halve the cycle time of remote reps and doubling the cycle time of remote shield transfers while maintaing their healing per second.

I'm not sure if this will be enough. If not they'll have to be homogenized.

2. CCP will introduce low impact penalties for plates and armor rigs or remove penalties from all rigs at skill level V. Reason being, the community is unwilling to accept meaningful penalties for shield rigs and extenders.

An example of meaningful penalty for shield tanking mods could be a max cap reduction. Large enough to make a cap injector mandatory for fits that employ high cap usage mods such as the MWD, energy neutralizers, etc. Large enough to guarantee that shield fits will lose in capacitor warfare against armor ships when equivalent fits are used.


3. CCP will make fitting oversized shield boosters a thing of the past or significantly reduce fitting requirements for armor repairers while increasing their healing per second.


4. CCP will limit ASBs to one per ship.

If they have guts they'll instead add a low slot cap injector and remove ASBs (one can dream, right?)


These would make a lot of sense, but I don't expect CCP to make sensible changes in this area after the RAH and ASB.

You seem to be pretty clueless about what's balanced and what isn't.

Actually I'm supporting Alara Ionstorm's idea of changing all rig skills to -20% penalty per level (it was him/her to first suggest this). I think though that CCP will prefer to keep penalties as a way to differentiate these modules, and therefore simply make them more forgiving.

It's an act of homogenization, but it's something everyone could accept. I doubt that shield tankers would accept a high impact penalty on their extenders and rigs as solution to bring them in line with their armor equivalents. The reply of Paikis shows this very well.



Right, it doesn't make any sense to compare active tanking to buffer tanking. Anyway, this is why oversized SBs and ASBs stick out. In terms of healing per second:

2x medium reps = LSB + boost amp

The problem is that for example a Cyclone can fit an XL shield booster + boost amp because of the low fitting requirements. That combo gives 120% more healing per second compared to 2x medium reps.

Add the ASB and active shield tanking has a ridiculous advantage. That's why people are now fitting ASBs to the Myrmidon.



Buffer fits for comparison:

Prophecy with 1600mm Steel Plate II, 2x EANM II, 1x DCU II: 68k HP
Ferox with LSE II, 2x Invul. Field II, 1x DCU: 57k HP (64k overheated)

And the reason why armor has higher buffer is precisely because armor reps do not land instantly. If reps are changed to land instantly then this might have to be looked at. Then again, shields regenerate.

What do you propose to balance active shield tanking with active armor tanking? Currently the situation is as follows:

2x Medium Armor Repairer: 71 raw HPS

LSB II + Boost Amp II: 81 raw HPS

XLSB II + Boost Amp II: 163 raw HPS

According to your logic, it is fine if active shield tanking is slightly better because buffer armor fits have slightly more HP than buffer shield fits.

The discrepancy in active tanking capabilities is anything but slight though as you can see from the numbers above.

How do you propose to solve this without either
a) massive buffs to armor repairers
b) disallowing oversized shield boosters? (as you can see, shield boosting already has the advantage even without oversizing)

1. This makes sense, really. I don't know if it'll be 1/2, but they will almost certainly shorten the time between rep and application. I doubt they'll homogenize it.
2. I doubt that very much. The argument about people "accepting penalties" is absolutely bunk. The thing about it is that sig is a significant penalty already. People just don't realize it because they think tracking and sig don't matter.
3. I really doubt they're going to nerf "oversized" shield boosters any more than they're going to nerf "oversized" armor plates. They may modify armor rep fittings, but until they boost the modules such that you don't require a 12 slot deadspace tank to match a 7 slot T2 shield tank it won't really matter. Slots are vitally important, and combining 2 historic slots into one is one of the big reasons ASBs have taken off.
4. Maybe. I'd rather see it be a soft limit than a hard limit.

-Liang

Oh I think they realize this, but you don't seem to realize that a speed penalty makes it easier for your opponent to track you just like a sig radius increase does...