These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Humongous inconsistencies in deadspace tanking mods - shield boosters made extreme
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2012-09-16 16:57:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Cpt Gobla wrote:
Tell me, which smaller picture compensates for deadspace Shield Boosters being faster, stronger, more efficient, hitting at the start of cycle, being able to fit on smaller class ships etc.?
The ones mentioned, for starters… there are probably more but before you show that there is a problem, there's no real need to start looking further (other than idle curiosity, which I do not possess).

Quote:
You're saying the big picture is balanced
No. I'm saying that you haven't shown that there is a problem. So far, you've been trying to imply that there is one by selectively looking at parts without any kind of context and engaging in a rather obvious fallacy of composition (not to mention trying to shift the burden of proof).

So: what's the problem?
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#42 - 2012-09-16 17:10:22 UTC
High Grade Slaves: Major contributor to the Armor game.
Neuts: Most armor ships fit them. Most shield ships run out of CPU
EM hole: All shield ships have one
Cap Boosters: Armor ships have slots available
Utility Slots: Armor ships have slots available
Duel and Triple rep setups. Only Armor ships do this as a standard.
Comp skills: Armor comp skills actually apply to most armor fits. EANM is passive.
Most well known Bricks in the game: Abaddon, Proteus, Damnation, other Armor ships.



These are just a few I thought of in -30 seconds. I could dig deeper.
IMO these are not 'small pictures' at all, but in fact large pictures in and of themselves.
John Ratcliffe
Tradors'R'us
IChooseYou Alliance
#43 - 2012-09-16 17:32:11 UTC
The DeadSpace Mods are stupidly expensive. They ******* well should be completely OP.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2012-09-16 17:34:27 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
High Grade Slaves: Major contributor to the Armor game.
Neuts: Most armor ships fit them. Most shield ships run out of CPU
EM hole: All shield ships have one
Cap Boosters: Armor ships have slots available
Utility Slots: Armor ships have slots available
Duel and Triple rep setups. Only Armor ships do this as a standard.
Comp skills: Armor comp skills actually apply to most armor fits. EANM is passive.
Most well known Bricks in the game: Abaddon, Proteus, Damnation, other Armor ships.



These are just a few I thought of in -30 seconds. I could dig deeper.
IMO these are not 'small pictures' at all, but in fact large pictures in and of themselves.


I kinda think I fail to see your point? Or do you have one? You think armor tanking is balanced as it is? Or not? SB overpowered? Or not?

And yeah, armor tankers use double med reppers at time, shield tankers use Shield Boost Amplifiers? Armor tankers usually also has inheritly higher EHP. Shield tankers have higher boost amounts.

Apart from the speed factor I'd say shield vs armor tanking is pretty darn well balanced in EVE.
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-09-16 17:35:41 UTC
Cpt Gobla wrote:

Tell me, which smaller picture compensates for deadspace Shield Boosters being faster, stronger, more efficient, hitting at the start of cycle, being able to fit on smaller class ships etc.?

You're saying the big picture is balanced and as such there has to be something compensating for these boosters having vastly superior stats. What is it?


EHP.

Armor tankers have more health, longer time to react or get repped. Shield tankers have lower health but faster boost.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#46 - 2012-09-16 17:41:51 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
High Grade Slaves: Major contributor to the Armor game.
Neuts: Most armor ships fit them. Most shield ships run out of CPU
EM hole: All shield ships have one
Cap Boosters: Armor ships have slots available
Utility Slots: Armor ships have slots available
Duel and Triple rep setups. Only Armor ships do this as a standard.
Comp skills: Armor comp skills actually apply to most armor fits. EANM is passive.
Most well known Bricks in the game: Abaddon, Proteus, Damnation, other Armor ships.



These are just a few I thought of in -30 seconds. I could dig deeper.
IMO these are not 'small pictures' at all, but in fact large pictures in and of themselves.


You have some points, but some others I'd argue with.


Slaves: I don't wear high end combat implants so I am not sure, but is there no high end shield implants?

Neuts: Most SHIPS fit them. Not just armor ships. And Amarr in particular have large cap use from weapons alone. Its not just shield ships that run out of CPU. Both shield races have access to capless weapons, Armor can not say that. Also, shields regenerate passively, armor does not. Makes a notable difference over time.

EM Hole: Yep

Cap Boosters: Most PVP ships have them.

Utility Slots: Armor ships have notably less mid slots than shield ships to make up for low slots being primary for them.

Dual and Triple reps: Only a COUPLE of armor ships do this as a standard, and Neuts (above comment) wipe them out. Also, ASB's > dual and triple reps currently.

Comp Skills: They apply to all fits, but you are correct they apply to more Armor. However Invuln Fields are also larger base bonus than EANM, (30% vs 20%).

Most well known FLEET bricks in the game: you forgot to mention Drake, the current ASB Cyclone, Rattlesnake, 'other shield ships'. If you start listing well known SOLO or Small Gang fleets, it leans further towards shields and asb's.

I would also add, you hear many stories of armor ships with shield fits. You rarely hear of shield ships with armor fits. There is a reason for this.


I did not know the large gap / difference in the deep space shield boosters was as dramatic as listed before this. I do not know if it is currently causing issues in balance, or if it needs reworking (I have not looked too much into it as I just learned about it), so I do not have a strong opinion either way atm.

But I do disagree with the above, and wanted to counter. Armor is not useless, but I do feel other than in large fleet engagements it is not near shielding atm, and it needs love. Active tanking in particular.

~Zyella

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#47 - 2012-09-16 17:43:00 UTC
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
RavenPaine wrote:
High Grade Slaves: Major contributor to the Armor game.
Neuts: Most armor ships fit them. Most shield ships run out of CPU
EM hole: All shield ships have one
Cap Boosters: Armor ships have slots available
Utility Slots: Armor ships have slots available
Duel and Triple rep setups. Only Armor ships do this as a standard.
Comp skills: Armor comp skills actually apply to most armor fits. EANM is passive.
Most well known Bricks in the game: Abaddon, Proteus, Damnation, other Armor ships.



These are just a few I thought of in -30 seconds. I could dig deeper.
IMO these are not 'small pictures' at all, but in fact large pictures in and of themselves.


I kinda think I fail to see your point? Or do you have one? You think armor tanking is balanced as it is? Or not? SB overpowered? Or not?

And yeah, armor tankers use double med reppers at time, shield tankers use Shield Boost Amplifiers? Armor tankers usually also has inheritly higher EHP. Shield tankers have higher boost amounts.

Apart from the speed factor I'd say shield vs armor tanking is pretty darn well balanced in EVE.



That is my point. The original post was about Shield Boosters being overpowered, and suggested a nerf. But my point is that shield pvp vs armor pvp is well balanced. And there is always a rock/paper/scissors effect that can be had.
Gabrielle Lamb
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2012-09-16 18:09:27 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:

That is my point. The original post was about Shield Boosters being overpowered, and suggested a nerf. But my point is that shield pvp vs armor pvp is well balanced. And there is always a rock/paper/scissors effect that can be had.


Agreed, some ships, especially on cruiser levels could use a buff but buffing armor in general would overpower the already powerful armor concepts like large fleets, AHACs and similar.

And in PVE, it's near perfectly balanced. Any inconsistencies are usually to be blamed on weapon systems rather then tanking systems.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#49 - 2012-09-16 18:29:39 UTC
@Tippia

Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:

The core differences between armour reppers and shields boosters are as follows :
Reppers
- less cap used
- more reps given
- long cycles
- reps at end of cycle

Boosters
- more cap used
- less reps given
- short cycles
- reps at beginning of the cycle


Are those not the core design concepts for boosters and reppers?
Are those concepts not implemented on the level of T1/T2 mods?
There was a reason why I included T1/T2 effectiveness increase comparison in OP.

Comparison to ewar modules?

Both mods I compared share same functionality. Both modules are used for exactly the same thing. One for armour and one for shields. Are you saying that they are doing totally different things and that in no way should they be compared?



Tippia wrote:
No, largely because it's not a particularly well-supported claim. The same exploration opportunities exist in null, following the same reward curve, and they take a back-seat to other means of making money.


Actually it is perfectly well supported in my case because for nearly two years this was my main focus outside of pvp ( still is ). I make all my iskes from low/null exploration and I do a lot of sites ( solo in low and gang in null ). I don't know that much about Sansha and Bloods space but I do know a lot about Serpentis/Guristas/Angel hi/low/null. Been there, done hundreds of sites in each space and security level, made about 150 bils total. I know about the profits and I know that I was making much more iskies from caldari/angel hi/low than null.

Same opportunities? In terms of profitability - No.
Same reward curve? Compared to risk and effort - No.
Other means of making money? Irrelevant.

Apparently you don't posses actual experience in this subject.

Tippia wrote:

Additionally, since you included lowsec, you already have something that's higher risk for your higher reward.


Are you suggesting that nullsec is inherently safer than lowsec?


Tippia wrote:

Yes, they're good modules. So what?


So why are respective armour mods not as good?
That was my point from the beginning.
I compared those mods for a reason you know.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#50 - 2012-09-16 18:36:17 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:

That is my point. The original post was about Shield Boosters being overpowered, and suggested a nerf.


Nowhere did I suggest a nerf to those boosters.
Rebalancing does not equate nerfing. Recent example would be deadspace remote reppers/shield transfers.
I only pointed out huge disparities between boosters and reppers effectiveness.

RavenPaine wrote:

But my point is that shield pvp vs armor pvp is well balanced.


Of course it is.
That is the sole reason why we see equivalent number of armour ships and shield ships in pvp.
Another reason being that even dedicated armour tankers are usually better when using shields.
In other words : Lol

But lets leave armour vs shields out of it. The thread is only about deadspace boosters/reppers.
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#51 - 2012-09-16 18:43:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tomcio FromFarAway
RavenPaine wrote:
High Grade Slaves: Major contributor to the Armor game.
Neuts: Most armor ships fit them. Most shield ships run out of CPU
EM hole: All shield ships have one
Cap Boosters: Armor ships have slots available
Utility Slots: Armor ships have slots available
Duel and Triple rep setups. Only Armor ships do this as a standard.
Comp skills: Armor comp skills actually apply to most armor fits. EANM is passive.
Most well known Bricks in the game: Abaddon, Proteus, Damnation, other Armor ships.


- Slaves
Crystals?
Also, slaves are only really important to caps and super bricks like Proeteus while crystals benefit ALL active shield ships, especially now with ASBs ruling in pvp department.

- EM hole
Exp hole?

- room for Cap Boosters
just like shields ships have slots available for damage/tracking mods
Also - most armour ships use weapons, which eat cap.

-Utility
Shields ships don't?

- Dual/Triple setups
oversized boosters + boost amps?

- comp skills
invuls being much stronger and can be overheated?

- bricks
And your point is?
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#52 - 2012-09-16 19:01:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Tomcio FromFarAway
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:

nullsec << Caldari/Angel low/hi
Isn't that a contradiction of of 'risk vs reward' concept?
The concept you are referring to ( and supporting ) quite often in your posts?


Simply not true though, the average DED 10 site pays ~2b or so the average DED6 site ~300m and the average DED4 site maybe 50, for DED3 in Gurista space you're lucky if you get an average of 25m or so because only a single good module can even drop.


I'm deciding if I should start crying or laughing.




I think I will go with laughing
LolLolLolLolLolLol


Gabrielle Lamb wrote:

Comparing a Tengu with a Gist Med Shield booster + Boost Amp +C-Type Invuln Field + A-Type EM Ward field to a Proteus with 2x C-Type EANMS, A-Type Explosive and a Deadspace Armor repper, and you'll find the Proteus not only has more EHP but also a higher sustainable tank.


If you are going to state such claims then please provide respective fittings to actually support them.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2012-09-16 19:37:30 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Are those not the core design concepts for boosters and reppers?
Are those concepts not implemented on the level of T1/T2 mods?
I don't know. Where did you get them from?

Quote:
Comparison to ewar modules?
Yes. You're only looking at a few individual stats and then making sweeping claims about entire classes of fits based on those stats alone without any consideration of the bigger picture. In doing so, you're making the same mistake as if one were to compare TPs and ECM that way.

Quote:
I know about the profits and I know that I was making much more iskies from caldari/angel hi/low than null.
You were doing something wrong then, most likely in dismissing the other means of making money as irrelevant, when they provided the reward you're looking for.

Quote:
Are you suggesting that nullsec is inherently safer than lowsec?
Not inherently, but if you're in it to make money, then yes, definitely.

Quote:
So why are respective armour mods not as good?
Aren't they?
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2012-09-16 20:01:24 UTC
Gabrielle Lamb wrote:
Cpt Gobla wrote:

Tell me, which smaller picture compensates for deadspace Shield Boosters being faster, stronger, more efficient, hitting at the start of cycle, being able to fit on smaller class ships etc.?

You're saying the big picture is balanced and as such there has to be something compensating for these boosters having vastly superior stats. What is it?


EHP.

Armor tankers have more health, longer time to react or get repped. Shield tankers have lower health but faster boost.


Which is why Shield Boosters are fast, bursty but not sustainable.

My question was, why are deadspace boosters fast, burst and sustainable whilst deadspace armor reps don't become faster?

If T1 and T2 is balanced for shield boosters and armour repairers then the differences between them are needed to maintain that balance.

Deadspace boosters lose one of the disadvantages of shield boosters, efficiency.
Deadspace reps do not lose any of the disadvantages of armour repairers, they're still slow and rep at the end of cycle.

Ergo, if the situation between T1 and T2 was balanced and deadspace boosters lost one of their downsides without deadspace armour repairers likewise losing a disadvantage or gaining an advantage then, all other fittings remaining equal, the deadspace booster gives a much greater benefit even though they carry the same rarity.

This leaves several options open:
1. T1 and T2 Shield Boosters are underpowered whilst deadspace Boosters are balanced.
2. T1 and T2 Shield Boosters are balanced whilst deadspace Boosters are overpowered.
3. T1 and T2 Shield Boosters are balanced whilst deadspace Armour Repairers are underpowered.

Those are the only 3 logical options open.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#55 - 2012-09-16 20:40:17 UTC
Cpt Gobla wrote:
Those are the only 3 logical options open.
…except for the fourth and fifth ones:

4. Boosters are bad at the low end, good at the high end, for an average of “fair”, whereas reppers are fair across the board for an average of “fair”, making the two balanced overall.
5. Outside factors make the low-end boosters better than they appear and high-end boosters worse than they appear.

Too bad that no-one can be bothered to look at the big picture to see if any kind of problem exists (and in the process give a hint about where to start looking shout there prove to be one)…
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
#56 - 2012-09-16 20:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tomcio FromFarAway
Tippia wrote:
I don't know. Where did you get them from?


By looking at the stats and functionalities of those modules.
You can do the same with any other module actually but of course you already knew that.

What strikes me as odd is that those deadspace boosters are so much different from their base counterparts while armour reppers and large boosters are not.
We can of course assume that the base modules are not balanced properly, which might be the case.

Tippia wrote:
Yes. You're only looking at a few individual stats and then making sweeping claims about entire classes of fits based on those stats alone without any consideration of the bigger picture. In doing so, you're making the same mistake as if one were to compare TPs and ECM that way.


No, I'm comparing mods that can be compared because they share the same physical ( specialized ) functionality hence the basis for comparison can be established.
Comparison of TPs to ECMs would be impossible because they only share generalized functionality ( both are of class 'EWAR module' ).

Tippia wrote:

You were doing something wrong then, most likely in dismissing the other means of making money as irrelevant, when they provided the reward you're looking for.


I was talking about exploration. This thread is about deadspace modules after all.
Other forms of making money are totally irrelevant here.
Of course it is possible to make more money in null than in low but it is not important.
The point was - you can make more money by doing exploration in low ( Caldari ) than you could make in null by doing the same thing. What was important is that you would need to do it in riskier environment and invest much more time/effort and quite often fleet up with others ( not that it's something bad of course ) and that leads to splits in rewards.

Let's just leave it. It has nothing to do with the OP.

Tippia wrote:

Aren't they?


Yes they are.
They are extremely less effective.



Care to elaborate on that 'bigger picture'?
I'm sincerely curious.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#57 - 2012-09-16 21:33:36 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
Care to elaborate on that 'bigger picture'?
I'm sincerely curious.


This seems very much like a "can't see the forest for the tree" problem; you're looking at one tree so intently that you're missing the forest.

The biggest picture I guess would be Gank versus Tank versus Mobility versus Utility. Taking just the tanking section, it would be split into Hull versus Armor versus Shield. Armor and Hull would be split into active versus buffer and shield would be split into buffer versus active versus passive. the active sections would be split into local and remote. The buffer sections would be split into resistances versus hit points. The passive would be split into resistances versus hit points versus regen. Stopping here gives us 15 (I think Smile ) different types of tanking to consider.

You're taking a handful of modules that seem out of balance to you, based entirely on a few stats on those modules, without considering that perhaps they are balanced against part of one of the other types of tanking? Or maybe they are balanced by ship fittings? Or perhaps the ships they are fit on have more utility or go faster (or less/slower) or maybe the ships will have less firepower to make up for their better tank?

Looking at just active tanking, shield seems better because they get an over sized booster, and armor doesn't. But then when you look at buffer fits, there is an over sized armor plate, but no corresponding shield extender. Yes, the invul field gives better resists than the EANM and can be overheated, but the EANM doesn't require cap to use and can't be turned off by neuting. Armor also has more base resistances than shields do, in additional to having a different resist profile.

Are we going to put a complaint in here about Amarr and Minmatar T2 resists being much better than Caldari and Gallente T2 resists? Because that plays a part in the tanking discussion also.

Imagine a clown trying to balance a pile of things on his head, while riding a horse on a tight rope that's on fire. You're fixated on what color shoes he's wearing.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#58 - 2012-09-16 21:52:57 UTC
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:
By looking at the stats and functionalities of those modules.
Then no, they're not “core design concepts” — they're just a (very loose) pattern you're projecting onto them.

Quote:
No, I'm comparing mods that can be compared because they share the same physical ( specialized ) functionality hence the basis for comparison can be established.
…but you're doing it without taking the full functionality into account, thus missing so many other variables that you might as well look at stuff that has completely different functionality (a detail you'd miss because you're so focused on the two or three stats that caught your attention).

Quote:
I was talking about exploration. This thread is about deadspace modules after all.
…and you were asking whether the risk-vs-reward was off, which entails looking beyond that one activity.

Quote:
Yes they are.
They are extremely less effective.
They have a different development curve in terms of reps for cap. This tells us exactly squat about how effective they are.

Quote:
Care to elaborate on that 'bigger picture'?
What companion modules do the different tank styles use? What options do they have available to maintain cap? What options do they have available to improve the tanking and cap use? What happens when we try to scale the tank up or down? What options are available for this scaling? What ships are they fitted to? What are the slot layouts and fitting space like on those ships — iow, what are you giving up or allowing by using the different tanks and different modules? What are the ships' inherent tanks like? What are the intended targets like (especially in relation to the inherent tank)? What are the cap profiles of the ships? How is that profile modified by the weapon systems on the ships? That's just off the top of my head, and there's bound to be a whole lot more.

…in other words, are they doing their job any worse or better than the alternatives?

Out of aaall of that, you're looking at HP/cap, which is such a tiny part of the whole formula as to be completely useless on its own to tell us anything whatsoever about the “balance” of these modules. And again, since we're talking PvE, balance is itself not really an applicable concept to begin with.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#59 - 2012-09-16 22:47:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Conclusion of this nonsense debate finishing as always in a soup of intelectual insults and trolling lets just say in the game of rock scisors paper, it's up to you to pick the better one for the job you're supposed to do with withing the group you are working with.

Nothing solved because there's no problem to solve, everything is balanced and perfect, there are only smarter players than others. Roll

@Op: edited because couldn't leave without giving you the last advice, fly shields, use capless guns, double XL-ASB and abuse the crap out of it. Just leave things as they are and stop wasting time and energy to discuss about this. Let the uber balance team take care of it, they actually really know armor is really OP and shields re still in need of a little boost.

Next shield item to improve shield tanking is a XXXl- ASB using cap booster charges 25 that increases combat boosters and implants effects for 100%, reps for 1500 per cycle but gets 60sec recharge time. You can fit as many as you want also, just in case.

brb
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2012-09-16 23:41:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Gobla
Tippia wrote:
Cpt Gobla wrote:
Those are the only 3 logical options open.
…except for the fourth and fifth ones:

4. Boosters are bad at the low end, good at the high end, for an average of “fair”, whereas reppers are fair across the board for an average of “fair”, making the two balanced overall.
5. Outside factors make the low-end boosters better than they appear and high-end boosters worse than they appear.

Too bad that no-one can be bothered to look at the big picture to see if any kind of problem exists (and in the process give a hint about where to start looking shout there prove to be one)…


Option 4 isn't balanced. There being an overpowered variant of a module does not compensate for it being underpowered. That's not a balanced situation, that's twice as imbalanced. Because you can't fit averages to any ships.

And, again, you fail to mention which factors exactly those outside factors are for option 5.