These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 1.5

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#81 - 2013-01-21 19:36:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.




I hate you so much.
Blood Valentino
Isuuaya Manufacturing
#82 - 2013-01-21 19:37:46 UTC
Man, this is a cool change, however im tired of people crying about rigs breaking their individual fits. Learn to adapt, or go play world of warcraft
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#83 - 2013-01-21 19:38:10 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.


Do you have any plans to take a look at the Proteus' cargo bay with the armor tanking subsystem? It doesn't have enough space for normal cap boosting, let alone AARs. IIRC there are several other Gallente ships that are expected to active tank and have relatively tiny cargobays.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2013-01-21 19:39:22 UTC  |  Edited by: fukier
CCP Fozzie wrote:
fukier wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IamBeastx wrote:
So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?

I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?

This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed?


It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.

There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.

You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.



how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare?

its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR!

presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships!


And also super overpowered.


elaborate please...

how is it super op in compassion to 5% to resist bonus which makes internal/external/ehp better while the rep bonus only makes internal reps better?

edit i could even live with a reduced effectiveness for incoming RR but you do have to agree there is a disparity between internal rep bonus and resist bonus...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#85 - 2013-01-21 19:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And also super overpowered.


If it is super overpowered, how do you explain resist bonuses?

-Liang

Ed: I don't mean to get in your junk over this. Just that resist bonuses affect EHP as well, which would mean that they'd still be preferred over 7.5% rep bonuses. 1/.25 = 1.33333, 1*(.075*5) = 1.375. The difference in "effective received rep" isn't very great.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#86 - 2013-01-21 19:40:08 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.


Do you have any plans to take a look at the Proteus' cargo bay with the armor tanking subsystem? It doesn't have enough space for normal cap boosting, let alone AARs. IIRC there are several other Gallente ships that are expected to active tank and have relatively tiny cargobays.

-Liang


We're taking a look at cargoholds and making adjustments as we move through the classes. It's no coincidence that the Brutix gained cargohold in the BC changes.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Klown Walk
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2013-01-21 19:40:33 UTC
You should do the same change for the asb.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#88 - 2013-01-21 19:41:46 UTC
Heimdallofasgard wrote:
Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits:

Fit

And that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :(


Rig increases rep PG use by 10% (without rig skills!), which would bring your fit to 51.35/52.5

You should drop the t2 nos for meta 4 anyways, costs 1m less and saves 1 PG
Viribus
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#89 - 2013-01-21 19:44:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Viribus
I was kinda hoping you'd buff armour tanking by nerfing buffer tanks

Tank power creep is awful

EDIT: Do you seriously expect people to carry two sizes of cap booster to run these things when local tanked ships already have horrible problems with cargohold anyway? lmao

Also the grid cost penalty on armour rep rigs, you know most active armour tanked ships can barely fit the lowest tier of guns to begin with? Holy christ these changes UghUghUghUghUghUghUghUgh

watch me be a scurb and get owned
Dracoth Simertet
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
#90 - 2013-01-21 19:45:07 UTC
I for one enjoy an extended period of teasing followed by a happy ending, also these changes look good. Any idea when we will be able to check them out on the test server?

o7
Drac
xo3e
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#91 - 2013-01-21 19:45:53 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

If only we were letting you reduce the mass penalty of all your plates by 25%, and for active tankers remove the speed penalty on the rigs? That would be great maybe we should do that. Lol


yeah maybe you should do that with 1600 plate.

now my turn to be sarcastic

mass penalty reduction is good
yeah
it doesnt matter that trimark rigged armor boats have like half of the speed of shield boats of the same class
25% mass reduction will be definitely enough for trimarked harbinger to catch nano cane or to bail
yeah

thats not even funny

not to mention that equalization of speed/agility parameters of armor and shield is fantastically bad gamedesign decision to begin with. why not just remove all armor from the game?? this wold be way easier.

Signature removed. Navigator
fukier
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-01-21 19:47:47 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
And also super overpowered.


If it is super overpowered, how do you explain resist bonuses?

-Liang

Ed: I don't mean to get in your junk over this. Just that resist bonuses affect EHP as well, which would mean that they'd still be preferred over 7.5% rep bonuses. 1/.25 = 1.33333, 1*(.075*5) = 1.375. The difference in "effective received rep" isn't very great.


this.

i dont mean to be harsh fozzie but i have been waiting for this to be looked at for a long long long time and am rather disappointed that this has not been addressed...

with the most respect possible

- fuk
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#93 - 2013-01-21 19:49:03 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.
This is really unfortunate. If anything, you should be boosting the bonuses on active tanking ships to 10% instead of nerfing the already-good Incursus.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Kyang Tia
Matari Exodus
#94 - 2013-01-21 19:49:53 UTC
To be honest, I'd rather have a Myrmidon with a max. speed of 900m/s that can fit medium guns than one that reaches 1100m/s but can only fit small weapons because the rep rigs cost too much grid. Same is true for many ships that are currently used with active armor tanks, such as the Hyperion, Vengeance, Megathron, or Brutix. Please rethink the idea of having active tank rigs increase PG requirements of reps. They are already harsh now and, if anything, should be decreased.
(Actually, I think that a 25% reduction in armor rep PG need could go a long way in making them more useful.)
IamBeastx
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2013-01-21 19:50:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IamBeastx wrote:
So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?

I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?

This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed?


It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.

There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.

You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.



While i appreciate (and endorse) the removal of the speed penalty, in the shield vs armor debate, i and others still see the loss of PG (and therefore theoretically a DPS loss through smaller weapon usage) not a good thing overall.

Read it, still asking about trimarks/resist rigs (non active armor rig) changes, if not, why not.

Your looking to increase active armor tanks options, but without any idea of what cap booster sizes are needed, or how many fit in the AAR, we can only guess at how much space we lose to AAR cap boosters.
Also in the shield vs armor debate, the AAR does seem to lack the same punch as ASB which does not use cap AND cap boosters to achieve its potential.


The plates change is very nice.
The new rig is potentially interesting and powerful.



You asked for feedback and i gave it, theres no need for snide comebacks in a legitimate conversation.

All my life i wanted to be someone, now i know i should have been more specific.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#96 - 2013-01-21 19:51:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jame Jarl Retief
CCP Fozzie wrote:
At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.


Ha! Now tell me, wouldn't it have made MUCH more sense to fix armor tanking FIRST, and THEN go and re-balance ships? Instead of rebalancing ships first, then fixing the mechanics that were broken but ships are bonused for, and then having to re-re-balance ships once again?

Aside from rep bonus, you'll probably have to take a look at things like cargo hold (for the charges for the new AAR), the PG (for the new rigs), the repair bonus (like with Incursus), etc. How awesome would it have been if you could re-balance ships in a single pass? Instead of tweaking the same ship several times in a 3 month period?

And think about the future. Remember all those shiney new drone boats? Tristan, Algos, Dragoon, etc? Remember those? What will happen to them when drones will get their review and re-balance? Those will have to be revisited once again to make sure they're not too weak or too strong. Like the Myrmidon under review now, what do you want to bet that someone will have to go back to that one after drones are rebalanced and rebalance it again?

So, doesn't it make sense to fix the core mechanics before re-balancing ships? Instead of doing multiple ship re-re-balances? Or am I just nuts? What?

Good changes though, at least on paper. I just wish they were done in order instead of donkey-backwards.

EDIT: Also, introducing a new skill to train for armor tankers is all good and well. However it further drives a power disparity wedge between newer and older players. One single skill won't make or break it, but seeing as you guys have started handing out new skills like candy recently (the sensor compensation skills), I do worry. I get that you need something to keep people training something, but think of the new players - which you are still having trouble attracting and keeping - and ask yourselves if this will make their experience in the game better or worse?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#97 - 2013-01-21 19:53:12 UTC
fukier wrote:

this.

i dont mean to be harsh fozzie but i have been waiting for this to be looked at for a long long long time and am rather disappointed that this has not been addressed...

with the most respect possible

- fuk


To be fair, there's been so much expectation (from and by the community) set around any armor tanking boost that there's no way CCP could ever have "gotten it right" without making armor tanking utterly overpowered. I'm pretty ok with not getting RR from active rep bonuses, but the assertion that it'd be "super overpowered" just rings slightly false to me.

/shrug

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Junko Sideswipe
Love Squad
#98 - 2013-01-21 19:53:14 UTC
Pretty interesting. What makes shield so attractive for null gangs is the ability to dictate your engagements by having a fast fleet that can outrun or overtake another gang. I hope these changes are enough to bring armor better in line with being able to dictate engagements like a shield fleet without homogenizing it too much.

These changes came out of nowhere and were a delight to read, keep it up. Cool

PIZZA CEO
Headstone Carver
Cool4Cats
#99 - 2013-01-21 19:54:24 UTC
Armour rig prices are in general much higher than shield rigs.

For those of us that like to lose a lot of ships in PVP this cost difference has the effect of skewing low SP and low isk PVP towards shields. A balance of rig costs would be helpful please.
TANGO WANGO
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2013-01-21 19:54:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.

At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.

I can't say I am a fan of a potential Incursus nerf, it's a really cool frigate and I would hate to see it pigeon holed into using AAR fits only. Other than that I am super excited for these changes!