These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FistyMcBumBasher
State War Academy
Caldari State
#181 - 2013-01-21 22:54:31 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
B'reanna wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Tsubutai wrote:
I may have goofed with the maths, but the Nanobot Overcharger rigs look distinctly underwhelming. On an unrigged ship, heating a rep increases your HP/second by 29% (1.1x rep amount/0.85x cycle time). With an NO, that goes up to a 40% increase on heating (1.13x rep amount/0.805x cycle time). Unless I've done the maths wrong, that means there's never a situation where the NO is better than an auxiliary nano pump outside of potential edge cases where you're running into massive stacking penalties (triple nano pumps? does anyone do this?):

Unheated rep, no rigs: 1x rep amount
Unheated rep + heat rig: 1x rep amount
Unheated + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.15x rep amount

Heated rep, no rigs: 1.29x rep amount
Heated rep + heat rig: 1.4x rep amount
Heated rep + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.48x rep amount (1.29x rep amount for heat times 1.15x rep amount for the nano pump)


Your math is correct, my math was wrong. I had been approximating the rigs in our internal test server using stat changed modules and had gotten the math wrong on the bonus. To hit the benefits I was aiming for, the rig will double the heat bonus at tech one.

That's what I get for posting before all the authoring challenges are worked out, but thanks for catching it now instead of someone having to catch it later.

I've updated the OP



and what about readjusting the active arour tanking ships pg? so that they cane still be reasonably fit with the armor rigs?
also will the rigg penalty changes be effecting the other our rigs or just the active tanking ones?

and then how does this balance with the asb which atm can fit more than one, cant be nueted off like the aar, and has more base rep tan the aar?



The PG penalty is actually very mild and much easier to get around than the speed penalty.
The rig penalties for trimarks and resist rigs are staying the same.

And the AAR has less burst rep and more cap use than the ASB with the benefit of significantly better sustainability. If we need to tweak the stats after playtesting we definitely can.


Any further tweaks to ASB's planned?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#182 - 2013-01-21 22:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Plates
  • Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates (including 1600mm) and is separate from the stat change listed below.
  • Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%

    • Fozzie, are you a woman IRL?

    Because I want you to have my babies. All of them.

    Forever.



    After about half way through, Fozzie is on the left: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E749hM9V530

    -Liang

    I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
    X Gallentius
    Black Eagle1
    #183 - 2013-01-21 22:58:08 UTC
    Liang Nuren wrote:

    Trivial:
    5% resist bonus: 1 / (1-(0.05*5)) = 4/3 = 1.33333. This applies to local repair, EHP, and incoming remote repair.
    7.5% rep bonus: 1 + (.075*5) = 1.375. This applies to only local repair.
    This should remain true for all of the changes in question.
    -Liang

    Definitely points out inequity between active repping bonus and active resistance bonus. Can somebody at CCP explain this logic?

    Do they think the Gallente hulls are otherwise overpowered and should therefore only receive a 3% increase in self repping power over the Amarr tanking hull?
    MrsBrownstone
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #184 - 2013-01-21 22:58:33 UTC
    No, No, No, give me new POS mechanics first, dont allocate resources to things that are working fine atm.
    Coreola
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #185 - 2013-01-21 22:58:39 UTC
    Could we also stop boning the T2 armor plates? They're almost completely useless with their insane mass penalty over tungsten.

    Jump, jump, jump.
    Arch Stanton's Neighbour
    Forceful Resource Acquisition Inc
    #186 - 2013-01-21 23:00:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Arch Stanton's Neighbour
    So does anybody still use ASBs? I ripped them out all of my fits as the "die in one minute" module. At least they were useful once when they could be fit in pairs and one module worked while the other reloaded but now we need three (or is it four?) for constant boosting and IMHO it became trash.

    Will the armor asb share the same trajectory? I only ask because thie game doesn't have enough useless modules in it already it's definitely better introducing more crap instead of fixing what's already in it.

    +1 on all the other proposed changes, though.

    Also how about removing the speed penalty from armor modules altogether? It's space after all. Just leave the agility penalty thatr's enough IMHO.
    fukier
    Gallente Federation
    #187 - 2013-01-21 23:02:47 UTC
    X Gallentius wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:

    Trivial:
    5% resist bonus: 1 / (1-(0.05*5)) = 4/3 = 1.33333. This applies to local repair, EHP, and incoming remote repair.
    7.5% rep bonus: 1 + (.075*5) = 1.375. This applies to only local repair.
    This should remain true for all of the changes in question.
    -Liang

    Definitely points out inequity between active repping bonus and active resistance bonus. Can somebody at CCP explain this logic?

    Do they think the Gallente hulls are otherwise overpowered and should therefore only receive a 3% increase in self repping power over the Amarr tanking hull?



    sush dont you see the great and powerfull fOZzie has spoken and given no reason to make such an assertion that this needs to be fixed. a pox on anyone who dares question why....
    At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
    Bumse
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #188 - 2013-01-21 23:03:18 UTC
    Akturous wrote:
    Secondly, I really think you should stop adding support skills to the game, you keep widening the gap between old and new players, you need to REDUCE support skill training time and INCREASE ship and weapon skill training time, so maximising in a particular specialty is quicker instead of needing 20mill sp in support skills to get the maximum from your t1 frig, it's fracking stupid and not at all condusive to keeping new players.


    This. All of my this.

    Bring EVE into the 21st century, add some basic chat features IRC-clients have had since the beginning of the 1990's. Get proper chat hilighting into EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97035
    fukier
    Gallente Federation
    #189 - 2013-01-21 23:03:38 UTC
    How about for the amor rig penalty it reduces shield recharge rate?

    that would be perfect...
    At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
    Dzajic
    #190 - 2013-01-21 23:06:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Dzajic
    Niceiiish.

    But no cigar. For med reps and up rigs will make your reps eat even more grid, and armor reps already devour grid. I can't degrade further from electrons, can I?

    And really really bad for not doing anything about existing armor reps!

    People have been saying for years that active armor tank is sub par, and you mostly leave it alone and add one more new and unnecessary module. Again one with so contrived mechanics that you have to limit it to 1 per ship. You still need cap booster, you are just eating charges much faster and in two places, and its either limited duration boost and than sub part to t1 meta 0 repper or you have additional "normal" armor reps on.

    Edit. Simple (maybe just temporary) fix to active armor tank would be to boost all "normal" reps and nerf the correspondent command links. So that unlinked active armor tank ships would be less of a joke than now, and linked setups (which are already competitive if pricey and complicated) so set up wouldn't become completely ridiculous op.
    Liang Nuren
    No Salvation
    Divine Damnation
    #191 - 2013-01-21 23:09:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
    Arch Stanton's Neighbour wrote:
    So does anybody still use ASBs? I ripped them out all of my fits as the "die in one minute" module. At least they were useful once when they could be fit in pairs and one module worked while the other reloaded but now we need three (or is it four?) for constant boosting and IMHO it became trash.

    Will the armor asb share the same trajectory? I only ask because thie game doesn't have enough useless modules in it already it's definitely better introducing more crap instead of fixing what's already in it.

    +1 on all the other proposed changes, though.

    Also how about removing the speed penalty from armor modules altogether? It's space after all. Just leave the agility penalty thatr's enough IMHO.


    I still use ASBs.

    -Liang

    Ed: http://kb.heretic-army.biz/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=44756 - ASB Condor vs Arbitrator

    I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
    John Nucleus
    24th Imperial Crusade
    Amarr Empire
    #192 - 2013-01-21 23:13:29 UTC
    Arch Stanton's Neighbour wrote:

    Also how about removing the speed penalty from armor modules altogether? It's space after all. Just leave the agility penalty thatr's enough IMHO.


    +1

    Wouldn't that fix a lot of imbalances? What are the arguments against this?
    Stridsflygplan
    Deliverance.
    Arrival.
    #193 - 2013-01-21 23:18:43 UTC
    Can the AAR be reloaded with cap boosters at the same time as its being used as a normal repper? Kinda big deal if that works, would give the module a nice different touch compared to the burstier ASB.
    S'totan
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #194 - 2013-01-21 23:19:14 UTC
    So Fozzie,
    let me get this straight...
    You wanna change the penalty on rigs from speed to pg
    On ships, that are usually PG tight on their fittings, that fight in scram range nullifing the need for speed.
    Am I reading this correctly?
    So Now a Large T2 Armor rep is going to take 2860 PG, if your rigs are double nano pump, and nano accelerator.
    A 2 X rep Hype can no longer fit Ions,
    A 2 X rep Myrm can barely fit Electrons.
    A 2 X rep Domi already cannot fit large guns.

    Was the origional intent of armor reps to ONLY fit 1 to a ship?
    If so why is it not considered OP that a ROKH can perma tank 1000 dps
    while any of the listed ships here would only be able to tank 1000k WITH both running WITHOUT boosters, WITH reduced dps output due to lows being used for tank.

    Which one wins in scram range?

    A 2X ASB ROKH or a 2X Rep HYPE?

    Rokh has a 1058 dps tank(1 rep running) and puts out 1200 dps

    Hype has a 922 dps tank(BOTH reps running) and puts out 912 dps.
    Hype now has to fit electrons dropping its DPS

    Even assuming they both run out of cap charges at the same time, the Rokh will still passive tank 1/9 of the hype dmg, while dealing 300 more dps.
    Both have around 75k EHP...

    ON TOP OF THAT, there are implants for Shield boosting. which take the perma tank of a Rokh from 1000 to 1500.

    I like the thought of an armor rep that take cap charges, because the mids can then be used for Ewar to counter the overwhelming dps of the ASB fitted ships of its class, however a limit on how many can be fitted all in all is ineffective.
    remove the limit on the reppers, and find a different penatly for the rigs.
    Iris Bravemount
    Golden Grinding Gears
    #195 - 2013-01-21 23:21:50 UTC
    John Nucleus wrote:
    Arch Stanton's Neighbour wrote:

    Also how about removing the speed penalty from armor modules altogether? It's space after all. Just leave the agility penalty thatr's enough IMHO.


    +1

    Wouldn't that fix a lot of imbalances? What are the arguments against this?


    I hereby support the idea of replacing current armor rig penalties with agility penalties across the board. This is so simple and brilliant ! Shocked

    "I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
    Cartheron Crust
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #196 - 2013-01-21 23:22:20 UTC
    Dzajic wrote:
    Niceiiish.

    But no cigar. For med reps and up rigs will make your reps eat even more grid, and armor reps already devour grid. I can't degrade further from electrons, can I?

    And really really bad for not doing anything about existing armor reps!

    People have been saying for years that active armor tank is sub par, and you mostly leave it alone and add one more new and unnecessary module. Again one with so contrived mechanics that you have to limit it to 1 per ship. You still need cap booster, you are just eating charges much faster and in two places, and its either limited duration boost and than sub part to t1 meta 0 repper or you have additional "normal" armor reps on.


    This. Fix the mechanic, don't band aid it with extra skills and shiny modules. Much like the "No more Jesus features" idea. Apply that idea to "all the things".
    DJ FunkyBacon
    Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
    Monkeys with Guns.
    #197 - 2013-01-21 23:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ FunkyBacon
    Fozzie and friends,

    I hope you will consider changing the penalty for active armor rigs from PG need (a penalty more associated with DPS increases for guns) to Agility.

    I realize a lot of focus is on the new AAR modules, however with only 1 allowed per ship, dual reps are not going to go anywhere, and already tight fits are looking to get even tighter if people want to continue boosting active rep performance.

    Shield rigs presently penalize Sig Radius. Electronics superiority rigs, some of which deal with scan strength and lock times, decrease shield capacity. there is a certain symmetry here and a balance.

    Present day penalties to armor rigs affect speed, while rigs that increase speed and agility decrease armor. Again symmetry and balance.

    In my opinion, a far more balanced penalty to active armor rigs would be an agility penalty. It will not affect top speed, but it will affect the time it takes to get there a little bit. There will be a small alignment penalty (always a consideration in PVP) and a ship will not be able to orbit quite so tight. The ability of the ship to pull range to rep up before heading back in will also be slightly affected.

    All of the above is a good balance for increased tanking ability that active armor rigs bring, and in my humble opinion, a better balance than gimping precious remaining pg.

    Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

    funkybacon.com - Blog

    FunkyBacon on Twitter
    M0ISHE
    The Moishe Co
    #198 - 2013-01-21 23:32:11 UTC
    One simple question.

    Could you make damage mods (IE for drones and guns) fit mids AND lows so we don't have to give up damage to armor tank?

    The drone damage mods are a wonderful thing but they force me to shield tank in Gallente ships...

    Thank you
    Aralieus
    Shadowbane Syndicate
    #199 - 2013-01-21 23:32:15 UTC
    I like the mass reduction on plates and a skill to further this however the whole AAR seems sloppy considering all the variables...very interested to see how this plays out.

    Oderint Dum Metuant
    Galatea Galilei
    Summa Universalia
    #200 - 2013-01-21 23:36:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Galatea Galilei
    Coming from a PvE perspective, active armor tanking is not unusable, but it's so bad relative to shield tanking that I can easily fit a cap-stable shield tank on my Myrmidon that tanks more DPS than a cap-stable twin-MAR armor tank, even though the Myrm has bonuses for armor tanking! You're better off ignoring the bonuses and fitting a shield tank to maximize your sustained tank.

    The new rig only helps when overheating, and besides I can't very well use it when I need three CCC rigs, two cap rechargers, and a cap power relay just to make the dual MAR fit stable. The other rig changes just remove the speed penalty, and do nothing to affect the fact that even a twin-MAR setup on a bonused ship doesn't heal as much damage as a passive shield tank on a ship that doesn't even have resist bonuses.

    The proposed changes don't seem to come anywhere close to putting a dent into the inferiority of armor tanking...