These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#361 - 2013-01-22 14:25:21 UTC
Johnny Aideron wrote:
Fozzie can you explain why you consider a hull bonus for recieved remote reps to be OP? I mean there is already a bonus to remote reps in the game it is called armor/shield resistance bonuses.

Hypothetical example: Imagine a 25 man gang (with 20 dps ships and 5 logi) vs an identical gang. Each dps ship does 500 dps while each logi reps about 300 armor points/s. The only difference between them is that one gang has a 37.5% bonus to recieved remote armor repairs while the other gang has a 25% bonus to armor resists.

Both gangs put out 10,000 DPS (before resists are taken into account) and rep 1500 dps. How does the different hull bonuses affect each gang? Well firstly the gang with resist bonuses reduces incoming damage by 25%, so the other sides DPS is reduced by 2500dps. Whereas the other gang get a boost to it's remote reps so their incoming repairs are increased by 562.5 dps.

So even with a hypothetical bonus to recieved reps the resistance bonused ships win out.

Under the fairly sensible assumption that a fleet brings more dps than logi, then the armour resistance bonus ends up being much more useful in fleets than this bonus to recieved reps. Furthermore:
*Resistance bonused ships tend to have an extra low or mid for tanking, whereas active tanking ships tend to have a less focused slot layout, forcing one to either sacrifice tank or dps.
*Resistance bonused ships get better as the fleet scales up whereas active tankers get progressively worse even with this proposed active rep bonus.
*Resistance bonused ships are less vulnerable to volley damage on top of getting more remote reps

Even so, if the bonus turned out to be too strong you could always lessen the bonus to 3-5% for remote reps (and leave 7.5% bonus for active tanking). I just don't see why it's OP.



Because making a T1 ship that doesn't work without logistics would be bad?

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#362 - 2013-01-22 14:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Edward Olmops wrote:
Concerning math....

If I combine 3 Rigs that each give 100% bonus to the overheat bonus, what is going to happen?

Stacking:
1. 100%
2. 88%
3. 57%
(roughly)

which means the combined bonus is:
2 x 1,88 x 1,57 = 5,9

multiply the 10% rep amount by 5,9 => 59% bonus to rep amount. Nice.

multiply the 15% ROF bonus by 5,9 => 88,5% bonus to ROF. OmgwtfBBQop....wh000t?

Does that mean 8,7times as many cycles or am I somehow completely wrong?

Would mean: AAR loaded, overheated, 3 Rigs: like 2.25 x 1.59 x 8.7 = 31times the rep amount of a T1 repper (8.7times the cap usage plus the cap boosters).
or in other news:
push that button to instantly trade aall your cap, a molten repper and half a cargohold full of cap boosters a for a fully restored armor...



The correct way to calculate the effect of 3x overcharger rigs and overloading is likely

1x + 1x + 0.87x + 0.57x = 3.44x

Substitute x for 10% to get the repair bonus, substitute x for 15% to get the cycle time reduction.

34.4% repair bonus
-51.6% cycle time

Overloaded repair/sec: 1.344 / (1-0.516) = 2.77x

Substitute x for the repair/sec of the repair module. A medium armor rep I repairs 36.66 per second. Overloaded with 3x overcharge rigs it would be 101.81
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#363 - 2013-01-22 14:33:43 UTC
These changes are kind of uninteresting. I'll withhold judgement until there's another pass at them, if there is one.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#364 - 2013-01-22 14:34:19 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Ancillary Armor Repairer
  • Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
  • Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
  • When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
  • Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
  • Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps
  • Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
  • Limited to one per ship
    • [/list]

    Quick Q&A about the AAR:
  • Why limited to one per ship?
    • The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR.
  • Why keep the cap use consistent?
    • The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further.
  • Why not just buff all armor reps?
    • One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.



    I am not sure I understand this correctly. I will demonstrate how I understand this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I will use medium size T1 module (with no skill modification). The module when active without cap booster loaded uses 160GJ of capacitor and delivers 240*0.75 = 180 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. When the module is loaded with 50, 75 or 100 size cap boster charges (9 of them) it will use 160GJ of capacitor and deliver 540 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. After all cap booster charges are used it will either turn off and go to 1 minute reload cycle or it will run with lower efficiency.

    In short to operate medium AAR the cruiser or battlecruiser needs to have also medium capacitor booster. It also implies that you need to carry two size of boosters in your cargohold to (i.e 50 an 800).

    I personally like the changes to the plates and rigs. I will adapt to the higher PG requirement (even though standard dual AR fit is tight on PG and generally requires lower gun tier). But having to carry two size of capacitor booster charges is kind of odd.
    Krell Kroenen
    The Devil's Shadow
    #365 - 2013-01-22 14:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
    So instead of working within the bounds of the existing system the answer is to throw more skills and modules at armor tanking. I guess that is one way of adding "new" content to the game. The skill to reduce plate mass will help but I can't say training for it will be all that thrilling. It just seems like a bandaid to correct one of the short comings of armor tanking, but now it's a feature since I get to spend training time to lessen a bad design element. And now I am reminded why skill books are one of the largest isk sinks in the game.


    Also the AAR seems like a gimic that pretty much plucks out varity since it will be the must have module on your active tanking ship. And here I was hoping for active armor tanking to be more viable in general when I saw the title of Armor Tanking 2.0. As for the rig changes, they appear to help some while hurting others so their view of an improvement would be in the eye of the user as with most things.


    Over all I guess there will be a rash of AAR fited ships running a muck after this goes lives and CCP will claim armor tanking as being fixed. But I can't help but feel that these changes are a copout to getting their hands dirty and doing a proper reworking of armor tanking. An ill fitted bandage to a wound that really needs surgery if you will.
    Hakan MacTrew
    Konrakas Forged
    Solyaris Chtonium
    #366 - 2013-01-22 14:34:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakan MacTrew
    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    Ancillary capacitor booster, ftw!

    +1 Ancillary Cap Booster!

    On a serious note, I'm looking forward to playing with these changes.

    Is the reload time for the AAR the same as the ASB? That hasn't been specified.
    Also, does the AAR need to stop repping to reload or can it reload while continuing to rep without cap boosters?

    These facts could have a dramatic effect on the whole thing.

    Friends
    Keko Khaan
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #367 - 2013-01-22 14:36:59 UTC
    So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...
    Griffin Omanid
    Knights of the Zodiac
    #368 - 2013-01-22 14:37:43 UTC
    Unkind Omen wrote:
    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    Unkind Omen wrote:
    CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times.

    No. Just remember once and for all - now you're cargohold-tanking. Not that realman-ish like hull tanking, but sure even more dumb.

    That's not fair, I want some cargo space for loot! Twisted Why should I get no loot if target is unable to protect itself?


    Hey, Armour tanker have enough lowslots for some Cargohold ExtendersRoll.

    But an extra cargo container for charges and ammunition would be nice, also then most ship would have less cargo then the Amarr ships now have... And this means that again some other guys would complain...

    Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
    Griffin Omanid
    Knights of the Zodiac
    #369 - 2013-01-22 14:39:32 UTC
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...


    A sig reduction would be fair, but the rest... Are you serious?

    Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #370 - 2013-01-22 14:44:32 UTC
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...



    Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better..

    Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable..



    Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved...

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Johnny Aideron
    Order of Rouvenor
    #371 - 2013-01-22 14:47:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Aideron
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:

    Because making a T1 ship that doesn't work without logistics would be bad?


    They would still have a bonus to their own armor repairers. The skill could be changed to "7.5% bonus to armor repair and recieved armor repair amount per level".
    Paul Clancy
    Korpu no Byakko
    #372 - 2013-01-22 14:48:06 UTC
    Fozzie, please concider adding the following bonus to Nanobot Overcharger: simultaneous reduction of heat damage by the same 30%.

    Thanks!
    Keko Khaan
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #373 - 2013-01-22 14:49:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Keko Khaan
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...



    Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better..

    Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable..



    Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved...



    I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Armor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty with plates and rigs. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty with shield extenders and rigs to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking. Because game mecahic is that armor tanks downside is mass penalty while shiled tanks penalty is sig radius. If you ever heard ahac's the point of ahacs is small sig radius thats why they armor tank.. Just to teach bit game mechanics for you..

    You can try pull you BS about me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with your OP buffed armor tank...

    Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then...
    Griffin Omanid
    Knights of the Zodiac
    #374 - 2013-01-22 14:52:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Griffin Omanid
    Shpenat wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Ancillary Armor Repairer
  • Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
  • Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
  • When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
  • Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
  • Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps
  • Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
  • Limited to one per ship
    • [/list]

    Quick Q&A about the AAR:
  • Why limited to one per ship?
    • The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR.
  • Why keep the cap use consistent?
    • The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further.
  • Why not just buff all armor reps?
    • One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.



    I am not sure I understand this correctly. I will demonstrate how I understand this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I will use medium size T1 module (with no skill modification). The module when active without cap booster loaded uses 160GJ of capacitor and delivers 240*0.75 = 180 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. When the module is loaded with 50, 75 or 100 size cap boster charges (9 of them) it will use 160GJ of capacitor and deliver 540 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. After all cap booster charges are used it will either turn off and go to 1 minute reload cycle or it will run with lower efficiency.

    In short to operate medium AAR the cruiser or battlecruiser needs to have also medium capacitor booster. It also implies that you need to carry two size of boosters in your cargohold to (i.e 50 an 800).


    With most armour tanks you don´t repair the whole time, are you?
    Because most of them can buffer enough damage to so that you normally try to keep your armour hp above 50 % and turn off the reppers once you reach 95 %. So you burst rep 4860 HP with 9 charges and then must reload and hope you won´t get killed in this 60 sec.

    Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut
    Rick Rymes
    Brutor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #375 - 2013-01-22 14:57:58 UTC
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...



    Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better..

    Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable..



    Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved...



    I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Ammor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking.

    You can try pull you BS anbout me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with OP buffed armor tank...

    Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then...


    I would love to live in your world for a minute, ignorance is bliss.

    But i will humor you. I will fly a Breacher and you fly a Punisher.

    By your logic the Punisher will win because would you know it, armor tanking is OP.

    I will go on a limb and say you fly shield not armor, and as a result have never had the issue of a faster, harder hitting enemy fly endlessly around you hitting you with greater range.

    The very idea that a armor boat could possibly keep pace with a shield boat and rep as much is just to OP Roll
    Sofia Wolf
    Ubuntu Inc.
    The Fourth District
    #376 - 2013-01-22 15:00:34 UTC
    Hey Fozz could you give us 1200 mm armor plates? Please, pretty please, with sugar on top.Big smile

    Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...
    Keko Khaan
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #377 - 2013-01-22 15:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Keko Khaan
    Rick Rymes wrote:
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    Keko Khaan wrote:
    So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...



    Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better..

    Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable..



    Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved...



    I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Ammor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking.

    You can try pull you BS anbout me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with OP buffed armor tank...

    Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then...


    I would love to live in your world for a minute, ignorance is bliss.

    But i will humor you. I will fly a Breacher and you fly a Punisher.

    By your logic the Punisher will win because would you know it, armor tanking is OP.

    I will go on a limb and say you fly shield not armor, and as a result have never had the issue of a faster, harder hitting enemy fly endlessly around you hitting you with greater range.

    The very idea that a armor boat could possibly keep pace with a shield boat and rep as much is just to OP Roll



    Ignorance seems indeed to be bless for people like urself but let me explain it to you. I go real slow so you can understand it too since you have come form some other world as you said yourself..

    Armor tanking downside is mass penalty on plates and rigs while shield tanks have sig radius penalty on shield extenders and rigs. Now if ccp gives skill that reduces armor tanking downside but doesnt make skill that would reduce shield tanks downside. Yes it makes armor tanking OP towards shield tanking.

    And im not inrested about your limbing because i fly both shield and armor like everyone should so stop being so bad at everything..
    CCP Fozzie
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #378 - 2013-01-22 15:04:50 UTC
    Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.

    As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced.

    Game Designer | Team Five-0

    Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
    Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
    Dzajic
    #379 - 2013-01-22 15:11:06 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.

    As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced.


    Can you please also reconsider Incursus nerf till further notice? It would be terrible shame if AARs got delayed or changed to something more reasonable and the little frig got its bonus nerfed for no reason. Please! :(
    Shpenat
    Ironman Inc.
    Transgress
    #380 - 2013-01-22 15:11:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Shpenat
    Griffin Omanid wrote:
    Shpenat wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Ancillary Armor Repairer
    statistics



    I am not sure I understand this correctly. I will demonstrate how I understand this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    I will use medium size T1 module (with no skill modification). The module when active without cap booster loaded uses 160GJ of capacitor and delivers 240*0.75 = 180 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. When the module is loaded with 50, 75 or 100 size cap boster charges (9 of them) it will use 160GJ of capacitor and deliver 540 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. After all cap booster charges are used it will either turn off and go to 1 minute reload cycle or it will run with lower efficiency.

    In short to operate medium AAR the cruiser or battlecruiser needs to have also medium capacitor booster. It also implies that you need to carry two size of boosters in your cargohold to (i.e 50 an 800).


    With most armour tanks you don´t repair the whole time, are you?
    Because most of them can buffer enough damage to so that you normally try to keep your armour hp above 50 % and turn off the reppers once you reach 95 %. So you burst rep 4860 HP with 9 charges and then must reload and hope you won´t get killed in this 60 sec.


    You are describing burst tanking. That is fine. The problem I see is you need two size of cap booster charges and cap booster to do it.

    The question is why cap booster charges?

    Races specialized in armour tanking (Amarr, Gallente) mostly use cap dependent weapon systems (lasers, hybrids). On the other hand shield tanking races (Minmatar, Caldari) has a lot of ships designed for capless guns (projectiles, missiles). ASB hence makes a lot of sense as it drops the requirement for capacitor booster and frees one slot.

    With AAR the things you need to have in your cargohold: ammo, largest possible cap booster charges for cap booster. smallest possible cap charges for AAR, nanite repair paste to repair overheated modules. Quite a lot of stuff...

    EDIT: maybe I can now drop the nanite repair paste from the list as the overheating module is dropped from the idea list.