These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#421 - 2013-01-22 16:45:12 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
If you take the Brutix and throw one tech one MAR on it you get 363 reps per cycle overheated. Add three armor nano pumps and that goes to 478 overheated. So 478 * 2.25 * 9 cycles = 9680 repaired? Still sounds nice to me.

Putting one on a non bonused ship nets 7047 hp.


These are all dependent upon capacitor. If you don't have capacitor, you don't get the reps. I think it would be a huge mistake to think of the AAR as anything like a plate, as people do to ASBs. Then again, I would happily go about my day humming and singing if they deleted ASBs.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#422 - 2013-01-22 16:46:06 UTC
Im liking this less and less. Actually, i hate it now.

Ancillary shield booster makes sense. It frees your mid slots from shield boosters and capacitor batteries and lets you fit ewar, tackle and all the other essential pvp stuff. It was needed to make active shield tanking in pvp more viable.

Where it stops making sense is when you realize that one X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster on a Maelstorm takes 200 cpu and 500 pg and tanks 390ehp/s, and one X-Large Shield Booster II with Heavy Capacitor Booster II and Shield Boost Amplifier II takes 325cpu and 2476pg, and tanks 328ehp/s. And also takes 3 mid slot not just one, and uses batteries much less efficiently. Ancillary Shield Boosters made older active tanking modules completely obsolete, even in pve since you can fit two of them, witch makes no sense considering they are made to free your mid slots.

Ancillary armor repairer on the other hand make no sense at all from the start. It does nothing new, does not free your slots etc. Since it uses cap you will still need capacitor booster in the mid slot, and they will both use the batteries from the same cargohold, so you can say it does the opposite, it gimps your other slots not free them. If you think armor repairers need boost why not just boost them and increase pg to compensate and prevent triple rep fits, instead of adding a module that does the same thing only better? Also the problem with armor tanking was never the rep amount.

So please drop the entire Ancillary armor repairer idea, focus on real problems with armor tanking. And Ancillary Shield Booster should not be better in every way than Shield Booster+Capacitor Booster+Shield Boost Amplifier, it already does enough by freeing those slots, it should not restore more ehp/s as well while taking 5 times less pg.

Also pg increase for armor rep rigs is gonna kill armor tanking in pve completely.
Dzajic
#423 - 2013-01-22 16:56:44 UTC
I think its 10% penalty base and 5% with armor rigging at 5. Could have screwed up the math ofc.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#424 - 2013-01-22 17:00:29 UTC
Dzajic wrote:
I think its 10% penalty base and 5% with armor rigging at 5. Could have screwed up the math ofc.


It is, but a lot of mission runners (who benefit most from these rigs) are unlikely to be at level 5, and not many newer players will have those skills high on their list for maxing out, so my good old dual rep mission domi will not work for them, it simply won't fit. I just wanted to point out the baseline numbers so the true scale of a 'tiny' penalty can be seen without being glossed by high skills.
Dzajic
#425 - 2013-01-22 17:08:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Dzajic
PVE circumstances have to be 2nd tier priority. In PVP rigging skills at 5 are still a luxury, but level 4 is near mandatory. But its still a god damn tough hit on grid.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#426 - 2013-01-22 17:10:52 UTC
so the AAR is supposed to give armor burst tank like the asb but is also supposed to be the sustainable version of the asb?

Perhaps the new repairer should use nanite paste instead of cap boosters? I mean im supposed to carry not only cap boosters for my capacitor that I chew through quickly but now I need them for my tank? Also some details about the reload rate and charge sizes are seriously needed.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#427 - 2013-01-22 17:13:21 UTC
Armor ships will still be kited by shield ships and do less dps. Armor ships need a new ewar module in order to counter speed, which is still the supreme stat in eve atm.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#428 - 2013-01-22 17:15:28 UTC
Dzajic wrote:
PVE circumstances have to be 2nd tier priority. In PVP rigging skills at 5 are still a luxury, but level 4 is near mandatory. But its still a god damn tough hit on grid.


CCP Fozzie wrote:
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


The change to rig penalty is still very much part of the pve plan for armour reps with CCP, not 2nd tier at all. The AAR is the pvp bone, and it's turning out to be rotten from the outset. Any change that prevents the standard and absolutely necessary dual lar fit for missioning is going to create a massive outcry of rage not heard since the Jita riots.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#429 - 2013-01-22 17:17:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
Nikuno wrote:

Any change that prevents the standard and absolutely necessary dual lar fit for missioning is going to create a massive outcry of rage not heard since the Jita riots.


No its not.

Get a 3% pg implant they are very cheap.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#430 - 2013-01-22 17:18:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Was about to get a titan in my pants but then I read:

"New skill"

"..increase PG for 10%"

"trimarks keep speed penalty"

"AAR" (as it stands)

And I got my internet feelings hurt Mr Fozzie !!

Base ideas are good but this does not fix the problem at it's core completely. Liang explained his point of view earlier and I can't do anything else than support his point of view.
Again, your ideas are great, but do not fix the main problem.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#431 - 2013-01-22 17:20:58 UTC
I wonder if this is being overthought.

SARs are fine. Buff the repair rate of MARs and LARs so that they are similarly effective. Maybe modify them to take cap boosters as an optional fuel; that would free up the mid slot taken up by the nearly mandatory Capacitor Booster, but still fill the cargohold with cap boosters.

If you want to do something new with armor, here are couple of ideas:

1) Ablative Armor Repairer: Essentially a protection against alpha, an activated AAR soaks up armor damage up to its rated capability, then disperses the damage in an amount per cycle that is, say, 80% of a comparable repper, while chewing at least as much capacitor. This AAR does not take cap boosters as fuel. Any damage beyond its capability is applied immediately. Likewise, If it is turned off before it has dispersed, any pending damage is applied immediately. The AAR does not function as a normal repper; it only disperses damage from its buffer. (This may be a long shot, because it would require some tricky UI support, but I like the idea.)

2) Instead of having reppers heal at the end of the cycle, have them heal linearly, with 1/n of the total repaired amount repaired every second for n = the cycle time of the repper. Do likewise for remote armor reppers.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Rubi Jackson
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2013-01-22 17:23:55 UTC
Very disappointed with the proposed changes. Please try harder.

Especially a new skill to train when you could just as easily change the stats without the skill. Still, Greed is Good, etc.

zerquse
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#433 - 2013-01-22 17:27:23 UTC
could you possibly make rep bonus dependant on the charge size you use. so it will scale with size and you dont have to mix cap boosters. example domi with cap injector so it requires 800's. but your gonna want to put 400's in that AAR. Then they must choose a longer running bust tank or a short super tank.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#434 - 2013-01-22 17:28:20 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Nikuno wrote:

Any change that prevents the standard and absolutely necessary dual lar fit for missioning is going to create a massive outcry of rage not heard since the Jita riots.


No its not.

Get a 3% pg implant they are very cheap.


Dominix pg with lv5 engineering = 11,250

PG Cost of rig changes to dual LAR fit with lv5 rigging skill = 722

3% implant gives extra PG = 337.5

Even a 6% implant wouldn't offset these changes with MAXIMUM rigging skills. That's an isk cost of 500,000,000 to end up in a worse position than you are currently. Can't see that being popular with newer pve'ers, and those are the ones CCP is trying to encourage to stay.

I love the removal of the speed penalty, that is so needed, but the replacement penalty makes the situation far worse for a far greater number of players, and that just can't go live to tQ.
Captain Semper
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#435 - 2013-01-22 17:29:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Semper
CCP, you realy think that main problem with armor tanking vs shield tanking - active repair\shield boost?
No.
Problem is shield tank get all low slots free. And u can: fit damage mods, fit tracking enh, fit nano, fit PDS (its boots shield tank too, lol!)
And only 1 "-" with shield tank. That you "need" 1 slot for prop module (in most situation).
And what i can fit in med slots, if i want armor tanking? Armor ships have 3-5 med slots (3-4 most of them). Prop module, 1-2 points (that i cant use coz of distance>coz of speed>coz of armor tank>coz of mass) EWarfare... No damage mods, no module that "boost" my armor tank (like PDS).

Yeah, new AAR is cool and new rig is realy cool (with my "fast math" i calculated like ~3,5k armor repair with AAR on Hyper with 3 different rig for armor repair in overload mod) . But it still not the solution for armor tank gangs\CTA fleets (with CTA armor fleets still useful but not like "nagassssssss" or rokhs, megathrone? what is it? PVP Hyper in fleet? Srsly? Dominix? Is he alive in fleet pvp?).

So, why not give armor tank ships module is med slots that will boost armor tank? Like PDS. Or special "damage mod" or smth else?
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#436 - 2013-01-22 17:30:46 UTC
Long story short.

Losing PG is not worth it.

Only weapon rigs effect fitting and it should stay that way.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2013-01-22 17:39:15 UTC
I have had this bad idea about making passive modules low slots and active modules mid slots ( this would exclude and module that fits in a high slot)

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#438 - 2013-01-22 17:55:41 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
SARs are fine. Buff the repair rate of MARs and LARs so that they are similarly effective. Maybe modify them to take cap boosters as an optional fuel; that would free up the mid slot taken up by the nearly mandatory Capacitor Booster, but still fill the cargohold with cap boosters.

There you go, a simple change that actually makes things better, with no new modules or skills. This way lie good things.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Dzajic
#439 - 2013-01-22 17:57:55 UTC
But then you literally make them into armor ASB. And we don't want armor and shield tank to be same... for whatever reason, but everyone keeps saying we don't want that.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#440 - 2013-01-22 18:08:40 UTC
Dzajic wrote:
But then you literally make them into armor ASB. And we don't want armor and shield tank to be same... for whatever reason, but everyone keeps saying we don't want that.


Hmm. I was hoping for a contrast, in that the armor module that most closely resembled the burst tank of an ASB did not take cap boosters, while the module that most closely resembled the steady recharge of a shield booster did. Does that not come through?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!