These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Perihelion Olenard
#521 - 2013-01-23 03:34:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
The ancillary armor repairer repairs about 93% as much as two tech 2 armor repairers when overloaded (each cycle should be overloaded anyway to get the most out of each cycle before reloading the AAR). However, it uses half the capacitor of two regular repairers and frees up an additional low slot for a regular repair, resistance, or damage module. Armor tanking just got more flexible. I can't wait to fly active-tanked cruisers once again.

On another note, the powergrid saved by fitting the AAR easily compensates for the penalties of the active tanking rigs. Depending on the fit, it also reduces the powergrid for the cap booster(s) since you need less cap for the amount repaired.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#522 - 2013-01-23 04:41:16 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


Don't forget that shields passively recharge, armor does not. And further that shields are often used by ships with capless weapon system bonuses (Caldari and missiles, Minmatar and projectiles), while armor tens to be used by cap-heavy ships (Amarr and lasers, Gallente and hybrids). I realize that to a degree this is compensated by stronger capacitors on some races, but you gotta admit it's far better to have your tank and weapons virtually immune to cap warfare (even though your propulsion for example is not immune), than to have your tank AND your weapons vulnerable to it (and propulsion and all of the rest as well). There's just too many negatives and too few positives.

Also, with BC rebalance apparently definitely coming in 1.1, what will happen to the Gallente BCs with their active armor tank bonus, if active armor tank is still broken by 1.1? How are we supposed to test the 1.1 BC balance of those ships when tanking itself is not done yet? Cart before the horse, yet again, just like the AI change and drones. How many more of these do we need to deal with?
Violous
Vae Caudex Corporation
#523 - 2013-01-23 04:42:59 UTC
NO on the skills. It already takes 11d 20h for a new char to train eanm2 for less than half that you can have Invul 2 +XLASB
This doesnt include the RAH, Resists Skill, extra fitting skills, CAP skills to max because your either using blasters or lasers (how will they track at 1100 m/s now the speed penalty is gone?) and you MUST have them almost all the way up. I think you know extra skills is kinda crap. Come on.

As for the plates I think its awesome that it could affect either kiting,gtfo,tackling etc with the option of having speed vs tank thats pretty brilliant. So kudos to that. As for the AAR i disagree w the high cap but lets see how it plays on sisi before we murder it.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#524 - 2013-01-23 04:47:53 UTC
Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please? I mean on a douple rep myrm having two modules eating cap boosters is bad enough, but for a triple rep its crazy. Escecially if I end up using two different sized boosters for each module that could be terrible to manage. Also nanite paste makes more sense for this job.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#525 - 2013-01-23 04:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Commander Ted
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.


Fozzie perhaps a new module that counters speed needs to be added into the mix. Instead of looking at it as shield is always fast and armor is always slow, maybe you should look at a slow ship having more options to reel in a fast ship. Things like better web drones, 20km webs, tractor beams, etc should be considered to make armor being slow not that big of a deal. Shield ships without nano fitted suffer the same problem.

A more extreme scenario would be to cut the base speed of all ships by 20% making it easier to snag point on fast ships and force them to take longer when moving into range.

Or bumping T2 webifiers up to 12km cold.

A rig that buffs webifier power/range?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
NetheranE
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#526 - 2013-01-23 05:04:24 UTC  |  Edited by: NetheranE
Fozzie, I am practically wailing over here trying to believe in you and the vision you have...

This however, these changes (outside of the plates), feel so half baked and completely unusable...

I really cant get behind these changes myself. I just cant.

I have a 4bil armor tanked battleship that struggles to compare to <1bil Maelstrom, or a 1.5bil Rattlesnake/SNI.
I have 20337.1/20343.75 grid left, if you change those rigs, there goes my fit and its ability to be competitive.
That fit is standard across many active tanked battleships and they all share the same woe, you make these changes, and you will have literally **** in the face of most active armor tanked battleships outright. Who wants to be blamed for telling anyone "Garmonation 8? Yeah, you could never do something like that ever again."?

Give us numbers and stats for the AAR, as well as any other options you brainstormed for the rig changes. I feel like a blind penguin on a highway who can hear the long haul truck coming but can do nothing about it.

The proposals in this thread that I agree with most are the Agility Penalties to Armor Rigs and reduction of fitting on current reps to compensate for your proposed changes.

:EDIT: Forgot to mention, the idea of using Nanite Paste for fuel in the AAR is logical and solves the CRIPPLING problem of carrying multiple sets of different changes in the AAR. A standard battleship barely covers its needs with the n800 charges needed to run its tank currently, to blatantly slap this resource-driven setup with even more stress is hardly conductive to "fixing" a very broken system.
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#527 - 2013-01-23 05:22:41 UTC
Fronkfurter McSheebleton wrote:
Spc One wrote:

Sure when you run out of power grid, remove 2 guns and you'll be just fine.
Who came up with that stupid idea to get power grid penalty ?

Abaddon will now have to remove 3 guns from high slots so that it has enough powergrid to fit rigs.
Another ccp nerf and very bad idea.
How more stupid can it get ?
Shocked

Why are you active tanking an abaddon?

Further, how are you fitting it? Even with these rigs the aba can fit a LARII, 8 mega pulse II, heavy cap booster II, and 100mn AB II with room to spare. Unless you're talking about beams, in which case it's not a problem with the tank, beams are just fracking hard to fit.

This is PvE fit you can also PvE fit armageddon, but yes fitting it that way will kill your powergrid.
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#528 - 2013-01-23 06:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Iyacia Cyric'ai
Roime wrote:
Hurr hurr, I did just that. You know why? You can't fit Large Reppers on BCs and cruisers, but you can fit XLASBs.
Considering that medium AAR have the same fitting requirements as MAR it's not a valid comparison to XLASBs. It would be off-the-charts overpowered if it had medium fitting requirements but perfomed as well or better than an X-L module. Your comparison was off completely irrational and I think you know it. You can fit MAAR with a plate or with other MARs, and unlike dual XLASB fits your fit won't completely be gimped.

RoimeNew Myrm has the same amount of mid slots as current one, meaning that you only have room for a scram with ASB tank. So yes, armor tank opens up mids for excellent tackle (point+dual webs). Does this somehow affect the tanking figures we are discussing?[/quote wrote:
Yes, because it's useless being able to tank tons of stuff if you you do know damage unless you're flying industrial ships. Only having a scram simply means anything with a AB or even an mwd fit with a web can escape you.

[quote=Roime]7.5% hull bonus is still underwhelming :)
Really this is the only thing that I can sort of agree on, the rest of what you said really made no sense. However the cyclone has a shield boost bonus and performs fine as a relatively cheap (for a BC) yet effective combat vessel, so it's due to other armor related factors.
NoPantsPanda
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#529 - 2013-01-23 06:42:54 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please?


This is wonderful.
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#530 - 2013-01-23 06:50:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Weasel Leblanc
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Why pigeonhole ships into predifined roles? By your logic each and every amarr ship should be rendered totally boring, effectively losing an option of active tanking altogether.
I'm... not sure you're reading what you, yourself, are writing.

The problem with the current bonusing is that resist-bonussed ships (Amarr, in armor's case) can be buffer armor fits, or local active fits, or fleet-type "I'm-getting-logi" fits, and be rendered more effective at whichever one they choose by that delicious resist bonuses. Active-bonussed ships (Gallente for armor), on the other hand, can fit a local active tank, or... wait for it... throw their bonus away entirely, because repper bonuses do not stack with EHP, nor with off-hull logi..

Losing your precious resist bonus will not make active tanking non-viable for Amarr. It will just make them worse at it than Gallente. Y'know, just like Gallente are currently worse at buffer than Amarr. And worse at fleet logi situations than Amarr. And - thanks to fewer low slots and not having a built-in resist bonus that's immune to stacking penalties - not notably better at local active tanking than Amarr outside of situations with very specific numbers.

EDIT: The above statements about who's better obviously do not apply when comparing the Punisher to the Incursus, but that's because the Incursus is hilariously good for more reasons than just the repper bonus, while the Punisher only has two mid slots.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#531 - 2013-01-23 07:54:46 UTC
Commander Ted wrote:
Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please?


What do you think would happen if they actually did this? The rage of the shield users would be immense, given that navy cap booster 400 costs almost 5x as much and has 120x the volume.

Hey, CCP, could you make ASBs run on water, please? ;)
Vess Starfire
Interfrequencies
#532 - 2013-01-23 07:59:54 UTC
A good comparison of ASB to AAR is to compare Thorax and Moa. The fits are below.

The Thorax has 500dps and a 190dps tank (750 total). Overheats to 560 + 250 (810 total).
The Moa has 450dps and a 320dps tank (770 total). Overheats to 500 + 450 (950 total).

The Thorax does about 160dps to the Moa. The Moa does about 190dps to the Thorax.

Oh btw, the medium AAR can only fit 7 charges while the large ASB can fit 9 because there are Navy 150s but not Navy 100s.

The ASB + shield buffer gives the Moa about 22k EHP to chew through. The Thorax has 12k EHP of armor + boosted MAAR cycles and then an ongoing 80dps (LOL) tank if it's not dead.

So point out an error in my numbers or bow to the suckage of Armour Tanking 2.0 in solo PVP.

[Thorax, maar]

Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer I, Cap Booster 100
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Warp Scrambler II
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I


Hammerhead II x5

[Moa, lasb bloa]

Power Diagnostic System II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 150
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
Warp Scrambler II

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Null M

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I


Hobgoblin II x3
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#533 - 2013-01-23 08:26:10 UTC
The post above just proves how much ASB is overpowered. I really dont get it how such a thing made it into the game. All-In-One stuff should not be more powerful than the sum of all things it replaces, especially not this much. It needs to be slammed hard.

And please drop the entire AAB idea, just buff armor repairers. It just makes no sense, it does not free slots like ASB, its just a straight upgrade with terrible design and (probably) horrible mechanics that will make it too complicated to chose when to use batteries and when to rep at 3/4, if we even get that option.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#534 - 2013-01-23 08:37:23 UTC
NoPantsPanda wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please?


This is wonderful.

Too late. You're doomed to do cargohold-tanking.
On the positive side, you can set a nice picture as your wallpaper:
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1301/AAR.jpg
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#535 - 2013-01-23 08:39:45 UTC
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Commander Ted wrote:
Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please?


What do you think would happen if they actually did this? The rage of the shield users would be immense, given that navy cap booster 400 costs almost 5x as much and has 120x the volume.

Hey, CCP, could you make ASBs run on water, please? ;)


Not rally. As AAR needs cap booster 800 (it eats your capacitor) o operate. SO effectively you need 2 different cap booster charges to operate it. When consuming the nanite paste you are reducing the need for the second size cap booster charge.
Captain Semper
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#536 - 2013-01-23 08:42:18 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:

And please drop the entire AAB idea, just buff armor repairers.

Active tank is "ok" only at solo and Alliance Tournament 100500 (becuase you know that they cant alpha your ship). Its not the solution at all.
Resist bonus hull works always and armor rep bonus hull works only with "special" module! You must fit it to use all potential of that bonus. it is ridiculous.
And ofc you forgot about logist. In rather big fleet (10+ppl) you just can pick 2-3 logists and it will be in 1000% useful then armor reps\shield boosts. So in fleets gallent su..."bad" becuase armor rep bonus is useless.

Its wrong topic name. It should be "solo and AT boost for armor ships..."
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#537 - 2013-01-23 09:03:09 UTC
Captain Semper wrote:
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:

And please drop the entire AAB idea, just buff armor repairers.

Active tank is "ok" only at solo and Alliance Tournament 100500 (becuase you know that they cant alpha your ship). Its not the solution at all.
Resist bonus hull works always and armor rep bonus hull works only with "special" module! You must fit it to use all potential of that bonus. it is ridiculous.
And ofc you forgot about logist. In rather big fleet (10+ppl) you just can pick 2-3 logists and it will be in 1000% useful then armor reps\shield boosts. So in fleets gallent su..."bad" becuase armor rep bonus is useless.

Its wrong topic name. It should be "solo and AT boost for armor ships..."


I never said that repairer could be used in pvp in any onther form than small gank/solo. And i never said that Gallente arent fcked hard with it. If it was up to me i would just give some gallente ships %armor bonus instead and make them have better buffer than amarr but work worse with logies.

This is supposed to fix the huge gap between active armor and active shield tanking, and the only thing needed to do that is to nerf the stupidly overpowered ASB. No need for a new poorly designed module.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#538 - 2013-01-23 09:15:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rented
I came. I saw. It sucked really bad. (j/k, but it is disappointing)


CCP Fozzie wrote:

Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%


If these modules had no mass penalty at all, they still wouldn't be used much. The instances where you can have any meaningful reallocation of fitting resources to any reasonable benefit are few and far between, so you always fit the largest plate reasonably possible. In this light this change, while having the noble cause of making these modules more appealing, comes across as stupid... because they're still just mostly-terrible mods.

It's like getting a cast for your broken pinky finger while doing nothing for your broken arm... sure it helps... but it also seems pretty stupid.

CCP Fozzie wrote:

Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades.


Your belief that new must-train skills don't increase the power-gap between old and new players is simply wrong. Anytime such a skill is added you've added more 'power' into the game, and while new players must cycle through training many such skills to low levels, veterans can divert their training from far less vital skills and max it as soon as possible. This does increase the gap, it is inevitable but you could at least stop misrepresenting it as otherwise.

And you're aware that by forcing players to train into your balance changes in this fashion you're essentially just shifting imbalance from one hand to another? You're taking something weak, and instead of buffing it you're replacing that weakness with the burden of additional training over the alternative (shield tank). Armor tanking, which you already recognize as inferior to shield tanking (thus attempting to buff it), is already more skill-heavy than shield tanking is; why would you seek to make it more so? This pattern of CCP throwing a new skill at every single thing in total isolation is somewhat disturbing.



And now on to the real [sarcasm]gem[/sarcasm].
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



Lets break this down into a AAR-ASB comparison-

  • It also requires additional capacitor. (worse)
  • Its terrible without cap charges. (same)
  • It cannot operate at full capacity without charges no matter what. (worse)
  • Its repair rate is lower. (worse)
  • It cycles slower. (worse)
  • It lasts longer. (better)
  • It repairs in larger 'chunks'. (worse)
  • It repairs at the end of cycle. (worse)
  • Limited to one. (worse)


There's not much to be said about it except it's clearly a rather crappy ASB for armor. And when you take into account the whole 'repairs less but lasts longer' bit, it still appears incredibly mediocre.

Behold, crappy graph magic!
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#539 - 2013-01-23 09:19:30 UTC
How about this:

Change active tanking bonus to: 7.5% per level of armour repairer amount and 5% per level of remote armour repair amount received.

Why? Well, this would give active tank bonused ships 17% more EHP/s from incoming remote reps than resist bonused ships.

Resist bonused ships still hold the advantage of roughly 25% more EHP but it would at least make active tank bonused ships a viable choice for fleet warefare
Mag's
Azn Empire
#540 - 2013-01-23 09:42:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Ask yourself these questions.

Will you still use plates the same as now, after this change? Personally, yes.

Will you still fit buffer mostly in PvP? Personally, yes.

Will you train the skill to 5? Personally, yes.

Will you use the AAR? Minmatar maybe, depends on the ship and it's cap usage. Blaster and laser ships eat cap, so doubtful on them.

So does this change, help active tanking? Personally, no.

Maybe I'm the only one, who knows?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.