These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ghost st
Sua Sponte
#461 - 2013-01-22 20:02:06 UTC
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#462 - 2013-01-22 20:06:05 UTC
ghost st wrote:
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.



This is not true, but you can't generally see the result in EFT.

-Liang

Ed: Also, sig is already in the tracking calculation. :)

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#463 - 2013-01-22 20:15:00 UTC
Always found the speed argument... odd. Ships are in space. Armor ships should have the same speeds as shield.

I can see them being less agile, and taking more time to get to full speed or stop however.


Just a random thought. ;)

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Celly Smunt
Neutin Local LLC
#464 - 2013-01-22 20:15:46 UTC
Atomic Option wrote:

Do you feel that armor tanking in PVE is currently balanced vs shield tanking, or are you hoping to do some follow up to balance armor tanking more generally at some point?


haven't read to the end of the thread yet, but...

I would be curious about that too..

Golem: Shield tank w/one deadspace XL-SB = 1394.3 rep in 4 secs (33.xxx base hp in station)
vs
Paladin: Armor tank w/two deadspace L-AR = 2288 rep in 11.3 secs (46.xxx base hp in station)

While these modules are both clearly not the most uber ones in existence, the disparity between cycle times (even with fleet boosts) clearly give the shields a decided advantage even when factoring in the added base hp of the armor ship

1394.3 x 3 = 4182.9 every 12 secs

12.0 divided by 11.3 = 1.061946902654867 x 2288.0 = 2429.734513274336 rep every 12 secs

with fleet boosts configured for each type of ship the cycle times drop to 3.2 secs and 7.XX(i forget the exact figure at the moment) secs respectively.

I also read 2 other posts, one mentioning (also) the fact that shield tankers have a decided advantage and a very good post regarding how resists are of more benefit to armor ships in buffer and remote repair situations.

o/
Celly

Don't mistake fact for arrogance, supposition for fact, or disagreement for dismissal. Perception is unique in that it can be shared or singular. Run with the pack if you wish, but think for yourself. A sandwich can be a great motivator.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#465 - 2013-01-22 20:26:40 UTC
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Always found the speed argument... odd. Ships are in space. Armor ships should have the same speeds as shield.

I can see them being less agile, and taking more time to get to full speed or stop however.


Just a random thought. ;)


The idea is that ships engines only produce a certain amount of thrust, adding armour plates to your ship adds mass which mean that ships cant go as fast. That's the rationale. I appreciate the eve ship movement is not realistic as we don't have newtonian physics at play in space so to speak. If we did sublight speed would be effectively infinite (read fractions of light speed provided acceleration could be provided for enough time). For the time frames of most pvp encounters though the additional mass of armour plates should only affect acceleration and agility, not top speed.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
ghost st
Sua Sponte
#466 - 2013-01-22 20:26:49 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
ghost st wrote:
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.



This is not true, but you can't generally see the result in EFT.

-Liang

Ed: Also, sig is already in the tracking calculation. :)


Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#467 - 2013-01-22 20:26:54 UTC

I don't know if this is possible... but I think the Ancillary Armor repper would be much, much, much better if you could "chose" when to activate the "ancillary" portion...

Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#468 - 2013-01-22 20:31:46 UTC
ghost st wrote:
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.


The issue is speed.

EDIT: and for active armor tanking, how hilariously bad it is (without links) on almost all hulls
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#469 - 2013-01-22 20:32:08 UTC
ghost st wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
ghost st wrote:
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.



This is not true, but you can't generally see the result in EFT.

-Liang

Ed: Also, sig is already in the tracking calculation. :)


Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.


ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range To Target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)

Pretty sure that the ships signature radius has an effect on tracking.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#470 - 2013-01-22 20:33:22 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!


In before "our terrible ui prevents simplistic mechanics like this"
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#471 - 2013-01-22 20:33:53 UTC
ghost st wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
ghost st wrote:
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.



This is not true, but you can't generally see the result in EFT.

-Liang

Ed: Also, sig is already in the tracking calculation. :)


Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.


huh??

The turret "chance to hit" is based on ship orbit speed vs gun tracking AND target sig size vs gun sig size... Believe it or not, when the sig of the target is great than the sig of the gun, increases in sig size inhibit a target's ability to avoid damage by out-racing your gun's tracking.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#472 - 2013-01-22 20:55:02 UTC
ghost st wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
ghost st wrote:
As I said before the issue isnt speed, armor does not need to be like shield tanking.

The problem is that the sig radius penalties for shield tanking are ineffective, and do not have the same crippling effects as the speed penalties for armor.

IMO armor ships should be slow, but relatively difficult to hit due to smaller sig. Shield ships should be fast, bit the increased sig should make them easier to hit.

The issue is that sig radius has very little effect on the amount of damage received, while transversal velocity (maneuverability) has a huge impact. Make sig radius a part of the tracking calculation aswell, so that a large signature radius nullifies some of the effect of transversal velocity.



This is not true, but you can't generally see the result in EFT.

-Liang

Ed: Also, sig is already in the tracking calculation. :)


Sig only has an effect on gun size/ ship sig, it has not effect on tracking whatsoever, its kind of stapled on there like an afterthought.


They're all intrinsically tied because the effect of gun and ship size is multiplied by tracking. Sig is a super powerful form of tanking. Shhhhh, don't tell anyone.

Aww who am I kidding? Too many EFT warriors for that to ever catch on. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#473 - 2013-01-22 20:56:30 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

I don't know if this is possible... but I think the Ancillary Armor repper would be much, much, much better if you could "chose" when to activate the "ancillary" portion...

Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!


It's almost like the ancillary part should activate on overheat. And almost like you'd want to use nanite repair paste to get your module working again....

Not that I'm going to complain about buying/selling overpriced cap boosters.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#474 - 2013-01-22 21:09:36 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


It's almost like the ancillary part should activate on overheat. And almost like you'd want to use nanite repair paste to get your module working again....

Not that I'm going to complain about buying/selling overpriced cap boosters.

-Liang



Yeah. That sound quite reasonable. Also moving some part of links to the modules itself. But I doubt it is viable.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
#475 - 2013-01-22 21:42:08 UTC
maybe i have a way to simplistic point of view,

but why not simply reduce the PG needed for medium and large armor reppers and keep the proposed changes for the active armor rigs? this way ships fitting for active armor have more PG to fit larger weapons, as they miss the slots to fit dmg-mods.
newPG need of reppers plus rigs should settle around the PG needed atm the moment, i guess.

then ditch the the AAR and apply it's mechanic (with tweaked numbers and boost upfront the cycle) to the ASBs. Limit to one per ship. it should get a noticable longer cycle time so normal shield boosters would have the incentive of a "quick" fix while the newASB is more like a panic button with a huge but more scarcely boost. so newASB providing a different flavour instead of beeing the same but with less requirements.

change the penalty of passive armor rigs directly to agility (and maybe tweak the numbers). this way (buffer)armor ships still would be as graceful as an elephant and still be very cumbersome to fly, but the speed would only be reduced by the plates (which is quite extensively already). this way manual piloting would be a bigger factor in fights between armor and shield tanked ships. a charging bull comes into mind ^^
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#476 - 2013-01-22 21:59:23 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Ok I'm going to respond to some themes from the thread so far.

Firstly I want to assure everyone that whatever we end up releasing in 1.1 will not be the end of the line. We'll be continuing to iterate on tanking in many different ways from patch to patch.

Also yesterday I was overly curt and snarky with some of my replies, I apologize for that as it made our communication more difficult instead of easier.


Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus
There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address.
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
In addition, my comment about the power level of active bonuses applying to remote reps was both unclear and exaggerated which was a mistake on my part. I have absolutely no desire to increase the effectiveness of T2 Logistics ships in fleets beyond their current state, or to push fleet warfare further in the direction of alpha being the only resort for breaking reps. Filling in the lower-end with less powerful repping ships that provide an upgrade path is another story, but I don't want to move beyond the current maximum. The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments.

Differences between Shield and Armor tanking as a whole
There has been a lot of discussion around the major differences between shield and armor tanking. The use of lowslots vs midslots, reps hitting at the start vs end of cycle, sig vs mass, crystals and slaves are some of the splits that separate armor and shield tanking and that can seriously complicate balancing. I am of the opinion that as much as possible the armor and shield tanking need to stay distinct, but this does not mean there are not areas where changes must happen. The gap between low and midslot tanking is affected by the balance between low and midslot modules such as for instance the TE and TCs. The rep at the start of the cycle is a major advantage for shield tanks that needs to be countered by corresponding advantages for armor tanks and armor tanking ships. Both signature and speed play major roles in the tracking formula, but the ability for the faster ship to dictate range, control the engagement and manipulate transversal more effectively make speed the much more important attribute overall. Getting signature where it needs to be in more situations is a longstanding desire of mine that is going to take time. These changes as proposed do not get us all the way there, will likely require changes before release and even then will only be one step forward that must be followed up on later.

Addition of new skills and modules
Many people have expressed objections to the addition of new skills and modules to the game rather than rolling all the changes into existing modules. I understand the feeling many people have that skills create a gap between older and new players, but that logic can be applied to any existing skills as well. Skill systems in games like Eve do provide a certain advantage gained over time, but the diminishing returns over levels helps to balance the playing field. I disagree that Armor Upgrades is any more a "must train skill" than any other support skill, and many players will find quickly training it to level 2-3 will get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player at a far lower time commitment. Also note that half the plates are receiving mass reductions completely unconnected to the skill.
As for the new module and rig, I agree that in general having fewer modules/ships/features that all work is better than having many that don't. However we feel that these additions open up useful design space by allowing the tanking mechanics to be influenced in different ways. As flawed as it was in many ways I do think the ASB provided a useful service by adding a new line of burst-oriented tanking modules that can be balanced in their own way. Modules built towards burst tanking will be definition overshadow other tanking types in many pvp scenarios, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing as long as sustained tanking systems have their own effective uses in the game. The AAR is a unique mechanic that fills the same general game niche as the ASB while remaining quite different in operation and gameplay. It does put more pressure on cargoholds, however keep in mind that an AAR goes through cap boosters much much slower than an ASB.
Heat is a mechanic that I think has been underutilized over the years by CCP, but I don't want to rely on it as the only method of burst tanking.

Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.

Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said...

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Mag's
Azn Empire
#477 - 2013-01-22 22:02:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
I really don't like these changes at all now. At first view they looked fine, but pg, cap use and that resists will still be better overall makes me sad.

Can we have nanite paste as fuel, instead of boosters? It would at least add flavour. Although I'm not convinced about the module yet tbh.

Edit: People are annoyed at the skill, because it's another must have skill and only gets around a poor penalty.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#478 - 2013-01-22 22:12:49 UTC
"As flawed as it was in many ways I do think the ASB provided a useful service by adding a new line of burst-oriented tanking modules that can be balanced in their own way."

Sorry fozzie, but the only service it provided was to completely turn the current balance of the game upside down... ASBs have honestly done nothing positive for the game other than making omg bbq setups that even further break the disparity between pilots with links and not. Also, no one really uses normal shield boosters for pvp anymore....

ASB was a mistake from day one, if you and the rest of your team have trouble understanding this it's because you're simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring any kind of reason.

There is no reason to add "a new flavor to armor tanking" when the current flavor is broken at it's core. Go and fix broken stuff before you do something silly like adding new overpowered t1 only bandaid crap.


"The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments."

The solution is to either un gimp other tanking bonuses, or simply nerf the extremely overpowered resistance bonus... There is a reason resistance bonus ships have been the mainstay in fleets in the past and will be for the foreseeable future...
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#479 - 2013-01-22 22:13:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus
There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address.
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
In addition, my comment about the power level of active bonuses applying to remote reps was both unclear and exaggerated which was a mistake on my part. I have absolutely no desire to increase the effectiveness of T2 Logistics ships in fleets beyond their current state, or to push fleet warfare further in the direction of alpha being the only resort for breaking reps. Filling in the lower-end with less powerful repping ships that provide an upgrade path is another story, but I don't want to move beyond the current maximum. The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments.


What about chaning resist bonus into buffer bonus and then changing the repair bonus down to 5% per lvl while adjusting nonbonused reps?

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.

Useless penalties is one thing. But what about penalties that effect shield and armor tanked ships differently? The armor loss on speedrigs is nothing for shield ships but painful for armor ships.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#480 - 2013-01-22 22:17:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
CCP Fozzie wrote:


Limiting oversized mods as a way to simplify balancing
I completely agree that limiting more modules to certain ship sizes would make my life easier. :)
However giving people the freedom to be creative with fits is part of what makes Eve so great and I don't want to lose that. It's going to take more work and more time but finding a balance without unnecessarily removing player choice is the ideal we're shooting for.


Paradoxically, allowing oversized mods reduces player choice because the oversized mods end up being the better choice. Choices are only meaningful when it's not obvious which choice is best.

How many shield tanked frigates fits use small over medium shield extenders?

How many cruiser fits use 800mm plates over 1600mm plates?

How many people even use 50mm, 100mm plates and micro shield extenders?

If you disallowed oversizing of modules and instead gave each shipclass two types of plates/extenders/repairers (a "light" and "heavy" version) then you could balance them against each other within the class. Lighter plates/extenders wouldn't have to suck anymore when compared to the heavier plate/extender and you could bring the two closer together in terms of effectiveness to create some real choices. Right now you can't do this because they are shared by multiple shipclasses and what's balanced for one isn't balance for another.

In fact this system opens up the door for more variety as you could for example give light shield extenders a totally different penalty (say cap recharge) than heavy extenders (sig radius).

As for oversized ASBs and shieldboosters, these are just plain overpowered. Luckily with oversizing no longer possible you can balance these modules within each ship class as well.

So all said, I think my proposal would be an excellent way to increase player choice while making balancing much easier (and arguably actually possible).