These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mund Richard
#761 - 2013-01-24 13:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Nikuno wrote:
I've tried to look at LAR/LAAR vs X-LASB and graph can be found here http://i48.tinypic.com/2zs9pjr.jpg

It's pointless trying to compare the MAR/MAAR with the X-LASB as they're totally different leagues. If XLASB continue to be able to be fitted to BC or cruisers then the AAR is going to be a very second rate system at that level.

The 2 systems are close but the armor always comes out worst. Add to this the issue of neuting affecting only AARs, the much higher fitting requirements or AARs, local rep still suffering poorly in comparison to resists and this is not going to fix anything properly but it will be a rather poor bandaid.

You sure that graph is correct?
After it's reload, the XLASB is almost always worse than the LAAR, except around the 150 sec mark?

At 255sec for instance where the 3rd reload is due to the ASB (unless my math failed me):
XLASB: 3*9*980 = 26.460
LAAR: 2*8*2,25*600) = 21.600 (entered it's second reload at 244, so missing a cycle's worth)
But why is then the darker blue above the lighter? Why is it near 30k?

Heck, why isn't it hugging the 10k line close at it's first reload instead of being between 10 and 20k? 8 charges * 2,25(LAAR multiplier) * 600 (T1 repper) = 10.800
Yours seems to be something like 14850, which is just about 37.5% more... Where did I get the 14.850 from... Roll
Hint: Hyperion.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#762 - 2013-01-24 13:41:24 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Nikuno wrote:
I've tried to look at LAR/LAAR vs X-LASB and graph can be found here http://i48.tinypic.com/2zs9pjr.jpg

It's pointless trying to compare the MAR/MAAR with the X-LASB as they're totally different leagues. If XLASB continue to be able to be fitted to BC or cruisers then the AAR is going to be a very second rate system at that level.

The 2 systems are close but the armor always comes out worst. Add to this the issue of neuting affecting only AARs, the much higher fitting requirements or AARs, local rep still suffering poorly in comparison to resists and this is not going to fix anything properly but it will be a rather poor bandaid.

You sure that graph is correct?
After it's reload, the XLASB is almost always worse than the LAAR, except around the 150 sec mark?

At 255sec for instance where the 3rd reload is due to the ASB (unless my math failed me):
XLASB: 3*9*980 = 26.460
LAAR: 2*8*2,25*600) = 21.600 (entered it's second reload at 244, so missing a cycle's worth)
But why is then the darker blue above the lighter? Why is it near 30k?

I assumed that the light blue is XLASB, and the dark the LAAR, as reload timers and first reps seem to be correct.


Yes, I believe the graph is correct having checked the numbers. The LAAR on burst mode reps 2*8*2.25*800, not the 2*8*2.25*600 which you calcluted, the 800 is the full t2 rep, the 600 is the lower 0.75*800 level in non-burst mode.
Mund Richard
#763 - 2013-01-24 13:43:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Nikuno wrote:
Yes, I believe the graph is correct having checked the numbers. The LAAR on burst mode reps 2*8*2.25*800, not the 2*8*2.25*600 which you calcluted, the 800 is the full t2 rep, the 600 is the lower 0.75*800 level in non-burst mode.

Aaah
CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
    • .
    Was that changed to T2?

    "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #764 - 2013-01-24 13:48:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikuno
    CCP Fozzie wrote:


    Ancillary Armor Repairer

  • Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper


    • I assumed the introduction of T2 as well as T1 from this statement so have used T2 stats. Obviously if only a T1 module were introduced then the armour version in either burst or gimp dual rep modes would suffer considerably by comparison with the ASBs. It barely keeps pace as it is in T2 format, alongside all the other drawbacks it brings.
    Rita May
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #765 - 2013-01-24 13:57:46 UTC
    don't skip the important part:


    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


    no need to asume anyting, thanks and cu
    Mund Richard
    #766 - 2013-01-24 13:57:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Nikuno wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ancillary Armor Repairer
  • Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
    • I assumed the introduction of T2 as well as T1 from this statement so have used T2 stats. Obviously if only a T1 module were introduced then the armour version in either burst or gimp dual rep modes would suffer considerably by comparison with the ASBs. It barely keeps pace as it is in T2 format, alongside all the other drawbacks it brings.


    Armor reppers have the same cap cost up to T2 so you are right there, but no the same fittings or repping, which lines only mentions T1.

    And if they introduce a T2, they might do the same for the ASB... Roll

    PS: and your shield reppers seem to rep at the end of their cycle (ridges after reload, no value untill 4-5 seconds), though that's only a visual thing, doesn't alter values.

    "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #767 - 2013-01-24 14:03:29 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Nikuno wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ancillary Armor Repairer
  • Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
    • I assumed the introduction of T2 as well as T1 from this statement so have used T2 stats. Obviously if only a T1 module were introduced then the armour version in either burst or gimp dual rep modes would suffer considerably by comparison with the ASBs. It barely keeps pace as it is in T2 format, alongside all the other drawbacks it brings.


    Armor reppers have the same cap cost up to T2 so you are right there, but no the same fittings or repping, which lines only mentions T1.

    And if they introduce a T2, they might do the same for the ASB... Roll


    In which case feel free to apply a factor of 0.75 to all the LAAR figures while i go tweak the graph to demonstrate the (abysmal) T1 comparison Sad
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #768 - 2013-01-24 14:12:48 UTC
    Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
    ... Its a terribly hard thing to balance, especially considering that there is already a perfect, simple and well balanced overheating in the game for your burst tanking needs until you drive your blaster boat in their face. And even if they somehow manage to strike a perfect balance in timeframe when MARII starts outrepping AMAR it will come at a cost of a big reload time and small number of charges making it nothing more than "oh crap" button.

    There is a good chance that is why Fozzie started the thread, to get brain-stormed to make sure he didn't miss anything. Took us only a couple of pages to show that the heating rig might be a bit much for instance .. balancing core stuff like tanking is never easy, the RR discussion prior to T1 versions and the ongoing ASB debate/hatred attest to that
    Burst tanking (ASB *spit* notwithstanding) is all about the oh-**** button, albeit slightly longer. The reason why it is sorely needed is evidenced by the prevalence of plates, more often than not supersized even if that takes fitting mods .. we need the ability to have access to that EHP without being forced to plate up, it will add a ton of variety and extra thought on the fits.
    Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
    ...Overheating is enough, and specialized pvp repair modules will just create a huge balance issue while changing nothing in the way of actual gameplay or introducing new and fun mechanics. Just killing ASB will balance active tanking and tweaking mwd sig bloom should be the first step balancing buffer tanking.

    Been flogging the "burst through heat" horse for a few years now and when I read this proposal I realised that my original concept had a significant flaw: If heat was used as the sole limiter, you would get the desired effect at the expense of zero sacrifice made and T3 would need a new hull bonus .. by using a module specifically meant to provide the heated rep (AAR) you force a decision process that would otherwise be absent (ie. none of my current fits would need to change at all).
    Killing ASB's does nothing for active tanking as that completely ignores the reason we need bursting in the first place: Population. Solo is rarer today than yesterday and average gang sizes will continue to increase as long as there are people to fill the slots .. higher population -> bigger gangs -> more dps -> buffering ad nauseum.

    All that said, the AAR should be a highly specialized module that can act as a plate replacement in small gang scenarios but fall behind as sizes go up.

    @Fozzie: Any plans, pending or otherwise, on revising the heating interface some more? Maybe the ability to at least increase rack buttons in size?
    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #769 - 2013-01-24 14:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    [quote=elitatwo][quote=CCP Fozzie]A few updates:

    We're switching the AAR to use nanite repair paste instead of cap boosters. What we're looking at now is for them to hold 8 reps worth of paste, with the smalls eating 1 per cycle, the mediums eating 5 and the larges eating 10.

    Reducing medium and large armor rep cycle time is definitely an option, either for 1.1 or in a subsequent iteration.


    @CCP Fozzie nanite paste is a little expensive any thoughts on reducing it?
    Also longer rep cycles mean the nanite paste lasting longer so cheaper too extra rep amount would be more useful and distinctive from shield reps as with skills you can take off quite a lot of time and their is a rig also to reduce cycle time you might make it obsolete.

    'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #770 - 2013-01-24 14:31:58 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Nikuno wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ancillary Armor Repairer
  • Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
    • I assumed the introduction of T2 as well as T1 from this statement so have used T2 stats. Obviously if only a T1 module were introduced then the armour version in either burst or gimp dual rep modes would suffer considerably by comparison with the ASBs. It barely keeps pace as it is in T2 format, alongside all the other drawbacks it brings.


    Armor reppers have the same cap cost up to T2 so you are right there, but no the same fittings or repping, which lines only mentions T1.

    And if they introduce a T2, they might do the same for the ASB... Roll

    PS: and your shield reppers seem to rep at the end of their cycle (ridges after reload, no value untill 4-5 seconds), though that's only a visual thing, doesn't alter values.



    http://i49.tinypic.com/117zi84.jpg Here's the new (depressing) figures for the T1 LAAR. I have however continued to use a T2 LAR as the second part of the dual rep as there's no good reason for this to change.

    AS for the visual aspect of the shield reps, that's all it is and over the 300s time frame it has no effect on the obvious imbalance between the 2 tanking methods. Thx for the good feedback Big smile
    Mund Richard
    #771 - 2013-01-24 14:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
    Nikuno wrote:
    http://i49.tinypic.com/117zi84.jpg Here's the new (depressing) figures for the T1 LAAR. I have however continued to use a T2 LAR as the second part of the dual rep as there's no good reason for this to change.

    AS for the visual aspect of the shield reps, that's all it is and over the 300s time frame it has no effect on the obvious imbalance between the 2 tanking methods. Thx for the good feedback Big smile

    Sure, T2 LAR is totally fair, and the visual aspect I noted for being mainly cosmetic myself.

    YW with the feedback, thank you for drawing!
    Was nice to see the 3rd reload XLASB vs the second reload of LAAR and the difference between the two, and ...basically the rest of the tanks.
    Two invuln XLASB will continue to be limited only by cargohold, and nothing will quite compare.

    "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
    Nikuno
    Atomic Heroes
    #772 - 2013-01-24 14:39:46 UTC
    Mund Richard wrote:
    Nikuno wrote:
    http://i49.tinypic.com/117zi84.jpg Here's the new (depressing) figures for the T1 LAAR. I have however continued to use a T2 LAR as the second part of the dual rep as there's no good reason for this to change.

    AS for the visual aspect of the shield reps, that's all it is and over the 300s time frame it has no effect on the obvious imbalance between the 2 tanking methods. Thx for the good feedback Big smile

    Sure, T2 LAR is totally fair, and the visual aspect I noted for being mainly cosmetic myself.

    *editing*


    Not sure why it won't open for you :( Opens for me if i click it directly or copy it and open as new link. Sorry Sad
    Ribikoka
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #773 - 2013-01-24 14:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Xenuria wrote:
    I have a question, what about 1600mm Plates? Why are they excluded from the bonus? I personally never use anything smaller than those for plates.


    The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus Smile
    The 800mm and 200mm change is to help narrow that gap a bit (I know it doesn't narrow it all the way) and the 50mm change is there just to keep OCD people happy.

    1600s still get the benefit of the new skill.


    Ribikoka wrote:

    So this skill just waste of training time and a big nothing.
    You think about it dear developer, pilots for the gap,the BS or BC pilots will use 800mm plates and they want to lose +10-15k armor (with bonuses) when they use 2 or 3 plates ??? Ridiculous developers.



    Roime wrote:
    [Thorax, Neutron LSE]blabla



    Do you know what is BS and BC ?

    Thorax is a BC or BS ? Oh my god. Go and play hello kitty online thats will be good for you, if you cant make a distinction between BS/BC/Cruiser.
    Roime
    Mea Culpa.
    Shadow Cartel
    #774 - 2013-01-24 14:52:53 UTC
    Ribikoka wrote:
    Ribikoka wrote:

    So this skill just waste of training time and a big nothing.
    You think about it dear developer, pilots for the gap,the BS or BC pilots will use 800mm plates and they want to lose +10-15k armor (with bonuses) when they use 2 or 3 plates ??? Ridiculous developers.



    Roime wrote:
    [Thorax, Neutron LSE]blabla



    Do you know what is BS and BC ?

    Thorax is a BC or BS ? Oh my god. Go and play hello kitty online thats will be good for you, if you cant make a distinction between BS/BC/Cruiser.


    I gave you an example of the effects of this buff and why the skill is very much worth training.

    Read again:

    Quote:
    Does this plate buff make 1600mm fits somehow blazing fast? Does it make armor faster than shield? No, and it shouldn't, but it enables mobile light armor buffer fits which I find rather interesting due to midslot superiority.

    1600mm plate is a Boss Module, it gives the biggest-ass pile of raw HP in game. I'm very happy to get just that skill-based reduction to it's mass without any EHP loss.


    Simplified for you: 1600mm plates are meant to be slow and will stay that way.

    .
    Bouh Revetoile
    In Wreck we thrust
    #775 - 2013-01-24 14:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
    Roime wrote:
    Sig difference matters only as long as no MWD is used. MWD sig bloom is so significant, that it completely equalizes the damage shield and armor tanks take in the most typical real combat situations. All weapons all the way up to capital size hit an MWDing armor ship no problems.

    Only speed difference remains, not as a meaningful factor in tracking, but as range control factor.

    It is true that these plate buffs really buff AB fits, but AB is not a common option on BCs, and afaik rarely used even on cruisers outside AHAC gangs.

    So even though it might appear that armor tanks are somehow now less penalized, it actually just balances the overall situation due to MWD sig bloom.

    Most of the time, you pulse your MWD. When your target is scramed, you deactivate your MWD, because you don't need it, or you pulse it. When you have enough slots (like 3 or 4), you can double prop and use an AB.

    People completely ignoring signature don't mean signature is useless ; and with the active armor rig change, it will be a lot easier to use sig. Also, these rigs will now be the only defense rigs with no defense penalty.

    As a side note, remember armor and shield are different. For example, there's no equivalent to 1600mm plate for shield. Asking LAAR to be as good as XLASB is silly, because that's not the way things work. Notice for example the extreme scarcity of mid slots compared to low slots : there is only one T1 ship with more than 6 mid slots which is the Scorpion, not even a combat ship.
    Captain Semper
    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Pandemic Horde
    #776 - 2013-01-24 15:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Semper
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:

    As a site note, remember armor and shield are different. For example, there's no equivalent to 1600mm plate for shield. Asking LAAR to be as good as XLASB is silly, because that's not the way things work. Notice for example the extreme scarcity of mid slots compared to low slots : there is only one T1 ship with more than 6 mid slots which is the Scorpion, not even a combat ship.


    Oh yeah they different... Lets take a look on LSE and 1600mm. 2 LSE shield point bit high then 1 1600mm armor points (5250 vs 4800). But you need low for damage mods, track enh and etc. So shield tank have more dps, same resists and same HP. They have sig penalty? Its nothing.
    From personal experience:
    50% time in fight i need active MWD (Nagas, mael, hurri). Do you think that im carry about sig?
    Ribikoka
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #777 - 2013-01-24 15:28:18 UTC
    Roime wrote:
    Ribikoka wrote:
    Ribikoka wrote:

    So this skill just waste of training time and a big nothing.
    You think about it dear developer, pilots for the gap,the BS or BC pilots will use 800mm plates and they want to lose +10-15k armor (with bonuses) when they use 2 or 3 plates ??? Ridiculous developers.



    Roime wrote:
    [Thorax, Neutron LSE]blabla



    Do you know what is BS and BC ?

    Thorax is a BC or BS ? Oh my god. Go and play hello kitty online thats will be good for you, if you cant make a distinction between BS/BC/Cruiser.


    I gave you an example of the effects of this buff and why the skill is very much worth training.


    Example of idiotism.
    And a 1600mm plate is a boss module ? Double facepalm.
    Pls dont post anymore.
    Ribikoka
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #778 - 2013-01-24 15:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
    Captain Semper wrote:
    Bouh Revetoile wrote:

    As a site note, remember armor and shield are different. For example, there's no equivalent to 1600mm plate for shield. Asking LAAR to be as good as XLASB is silly, because that's not the way things work. Notice for example the extreme scarcity of mid slots compared to low slots : there is only one T1 ship with more than 6 mid slots which is the Scorpion, not even a combat ship.


    Oh yeah they different... Lets take a look on LSE and 1600mm. 2 LSE shield point bit high then 1 1600mm armor points (5250 vs 4800). But you need low for damage mods, track enh and etc. So shield tank have more dps, same resists and same HP. They have sig penalty? Its nothing.
    From personal experience:
    50% time in fight i need active MWD (Nagas, mael, hurri). Do you think that im carry about sig?


    +1 bro.
    And they forget. When a pilot use 1600mm on his ship, sometimes cant fit the possible biggest guns because 1600mm consume more PG and when use smaller guns the pilot lost more dps.
    Roime
    Mea Culpa.
    Shadow Cartel
    #779 - 2013-01-24 15:35:47 UTC
    If you don't have any real arguments, and can't even post that zero-content in a civilized manner, I think it's actually you should stop posting.

    1600mm II is the biggest buffer module in the game. It simply needs to come with serious drawbacks.



    .
    Ribikoka
    Royal Amarr Institute
    Amarr Empire
    #780 - 2013-01-24 15:40:05 UTC
    Roime wrote:
    If you don't have any real arguments, and can't even post that zero-content in a civilized manner, I think it's actually you should stop posting.

    1600mm II is the biggest buffer module in the game. It simply needs to come with serious drawbacks.





    HTFU. When someone speak from BS and BC your "real arguments" is how can fit a cruiser ?
    1600mm it's a boss module for you and a joke argument for me, like you. :PPPPPPP