These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#841 - 2013-01-25 12:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
So in your opinion dual rep Abaddons are making Hyperions obsolete? Have you ever even seen a dual rep Abaddon?

Well... Why would you dual-rep an Abaddon, when you have logi support that the Hyper cannot make good use of.
Heh.

Joke aside, I'm not saying it obsoletes the Hyper.
I'm saying it can (with using 3 active rigs while the Hyper can only use two) sortof rep like a Hyper, while receiving a lot more from remote support.

What it cannot do like the Hyper, is move as fast, do as much damage, or track as well.
What it can do better, is stay on field much longer if a single logi is present, and project it's damage further away.

"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.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#842 - 2013-01-25 12:33:32 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
And OMG, it's 3 mil worth of paste in your 100 mil battleship - are you bloody serious?

For PvP, 3M is peanuts.

How many serious pew'ers have less than half a billion in implants, use only named/T2 modules, fly only T1 ships and don't carry enough faction ammo for multiple fights?

Three million is less than the price of a single BS gun, it is less than 2 Cruiser guns or 4 frigate guns .. and for that 3M investment you get the equivalent of a personal logistics aiming half his reppers on you ...

Still think it too much? I'd gladly have it doubled or even tripled!
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#843 - 2013-01-25 12:36:22 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
So in your opinion dual rep Abaddons are making Hyperions obsolete? Have you ever even seen a dual rep Abaddon?

Well... Why would you dual-rep an Abaddon, when you have logi support that the Hyper cannot make good use of.
Heh.

Joke aside, I'm not saying it obsoletes the Hyper.
I'm saying it can (with using 3 active rigs while the Hyper can only use two) sortof rep like a Hyper, while receiving a lot more from remote support.

What it cannot do like the Hyper, is move as fast, do as much damage, or track as well.
What it can do better, is stay on field if a logi is present, and project it's damage further away.


If you have logi support, why would you even consider active tanking?

I'm getting the impression that you have a difficult time coming up with reasons why the active tanked Abaddon is better than the Hyperion.

Do you mind showing me the Abaddon and Hyperion fits that you're basing your opinion on?
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#844 - 2013-01-25 12:37:18 UTC
Roime wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Does anyone else get the feeling that the speed penalty changing to the PG penalty, is like getting out of the frying pan into the fire?


It's massively better than speed penalty in burst tanking, but yes, it will cause problems.

Still the PG needs of medium and large reppers are ridiculously out of whack compared with their repping amount.

If the incredibly low base rep amount, yes- the core, origin and reason of every whine about active armor tanking is not fixed, then maybe balance the fitting so that people can start flying dual LAR Myrmidons? Or nerf oversizing shields.

90 hp/s.

That's the raw "power" of LAAR + Heavy Capacitor Booster II.
Two slots, both a low and mid.
3925 PG. Battleship size module.
Hard limit of 1 per ship.
Can be neuted out.

196 hp/s.

That's what you get with a single mid slot and 500 PG if you go shield. Twice as good, almost eight times easier to fit. Fit as many as you like. Cruiser size module. Cap immune.

Now it's up to you to decide what is the correct measure of balance:

ASB rep amount
LAR rep amount
ASB fitting
LAR fitting

but something has to change, the relative balance is just too bizarrely out of whack.

My suggestion would be to fix:

- ASB fitting so that oversizing is not possible
- Lift the base rep amount of all ASBs and armor reppers (so that < 3 appropriate sized mods are actually viable on current TQ)
- Decrease cycle time of armor reps because the repping happens at the end of cycle
- Decrease cap usage of armor mods *
- Then base the AARs on these stats because 2.25 times way too little != enough

* damage reduction if opting for armor tank is two-fold; you need to downgrade guns, and you can't fit dmg mods. So why shouldn't there be a concrete advantage then in the form of more efficient reps?

In the end, AAR really does not fix any of the core issues. It simply accepts the core issue - armor reps rep too little, and tries to work around it by turning one module into 1.68 modules for 8 cycles. Active armor hull bonuses are left as they are, barely better in their niche than universally good resist bonuses. Cool, we'll take this if that's the only option, but what we still have is lower damage with less reps if we opt for active armor tank instead of shields.



Very good analysis.

The AAR is a neat toy, certainly worth putting one on in place of a regular rep in a dual or triple rep setup - but come on Fozzie... throw a little love at active armor tanking performance too please. It's cap intensive, fitting intensive, slot intensive, and still sub-par.



I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#845 - 2013-01-25 12:45:03 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Roime wrote:
Good post.


Very good analysis.

The AAR is a neat toy, certainly worth putting one on in place of a regular rep in a dual or triple rep setup - but come on Fozzie... throw a little love at active armor tanking performance too please. It's cap intensive, fitting intensive, slot intensive, and still sub-par.



Indeed. Just took a look at EFT and the AAR although neat, still doesn't float my boat. I compared it to fits I've used in the past and tbh, it's underwhelming to say the least.

So even with the change as it stands now, it's either buffer or shield. Well that's how I feel right now.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mund Richard
#846 - 2013-01-25 12:56:02 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
If you have logi support, why would you even consider active tanking?

I'm getting the impression that you have a difficult time coming up with reasons why the active tanked Abaddon is better than the Hyperion.

Do you mind showing me the Abaddon and Hyperion fits that you're basing your opinion on?

In all honesty, I don't like active tanking by default, so I have a difficult time coming up with a reason for any of it outside solo.

Looking at the fits, must admit I made two mistakes.
Lows: LAAR + 1/2 LAR + 3/2 EAMN + 1/0 DC + 1 damage upgrade
Mids: 1/2 Cap booster, web scram protoMWD
High: 8 guns (Dual/Electron)
Rigs: 3/2 Aux Nano, 0/1 Ancil
1) Had no DC on the Hyper due to using a fit from a previous convo comparing it to a Rokh
2) Rig mistake

If I correct both to have no damage mod (4th EAMN for the Abaddon), the Hyper has 13% more rep with the one extra LAR.

"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.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#847 - 2013-01-25 12:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Mag's wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Roime wrote:
Good post.


Very good analysis.

The AAR is a neat toy, certainly worth putting one on in place of a regular rep in a dual or triple rep setup - but come on Fozzie... throw a little love at active armor tanking performance too please. It's cap intensive, fitting intensive, slot intensive, and still sub-par.



Indeed. Just took a look at EFT and the AAR although neat, still doesn't float my boat. I compared it to fits I've used in the past and tbh, it's underwhelming to say the least.

So even with the change as it stands now, it's either buffer or shield. Well that's how I feel right now.


As it stands right now you can pick two different gangs of Thoraxes, one shield fitted one armor fitted, both get at the same gate ad start shooting each other, what happens?

The armor gang just got face raped by shield gang delivering double dps, moving faster, and enough tank (ASB?)
What is active tank about? -burst for a min or two then pray god your opponent is an idiot, badly fitted, sleeping, lagging ! THAT'S the "in the face" factor making difference enough for active armor rep be the crap it is in pvp.
My main char is mainly gallente spec, if I ever undock with an armor fit for solo and get caught at the gate in null, I deserve to be killed podded and mock/trolled in local.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#848 - 2013-01-25 12:57:37 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
If you have logi support, why would you even consider active tanking?

I'm getting the impression that you have a difficult time coming up with reasons why the active tanked Abaddon is better than the Hyperion.

Do you mind showing me the Abaddon and Hyperion fits that you're basing your opinion on?

In all honesty, I don't like active tanking by default, so I have a difficult time coming up with a reason for any of it outside solo.

Looking at the fits, must admit I made two mistakes.
Lows: LAAR + 1/2 LAR + 3/2 EAMN + 1/0 DC + 1 damage upgrade
Mids: 1/2 Cap booster, web scram protoMWD
High: 8 guns (Dual/Electron)
Rigs: 3/2 Aux Nano, 0/1 Ancil
1) Had no DC on the Hyper due to using a fit from a previous convo comparing it to a Rokh
2) Rig mistake

If I correct both to have no damage mod (4th EAMN for the Abaddon), the Hyper has 13% more rep with the one extra LAR.


Copy and paste the fits from EFT please, this format is difficult to read.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#849 - 2013-01-25 13:04:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
So additional requirements if AAR is to be implemented are:
- Reduction of armour repairer grid requirements across the board (out of whack to begin with and now rigs will ... )
- Some way to close the gap, at least partially, between active shield and armour ditto without making the use of said modules OP (as initial ASB).
- Some way to alleviate the cap use of the AAR without actually making it capless like the 'heinous one'.

* Knock off 20-25% the grid/cpu requirements of repairers.
* Knock a similar amount off the cycle times and/or add to repaired amount (still wont be 'shield level' but armour has more native resist), more and I fear for my cap and that armour ends up being the new FoTM with eWar on everything as the result Smile.
* Reduce small NOS fitting requirements to that of neuts and double cap drained of all NOS (keeping the "must have less than enemy" mechanic of course).
* Examine what happens with lower fittings for injectors.

PS: I've tried fighting ASB users and don't want to be "that guy" only with an armour option .. module should be a choice not a requirement.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#850 - 2013-01-25 13:16:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

* Examine what happens with lower fittings for injectors.

PS: I've tried fighting ASB users and don't want to be "that guy" only with an armour option .. module should be a choice not a requirement.


This is an important point. Active armor tanking is inseparable from cap injectors, and medium and large cap injectors also have significant fitting requirements.

Energy vampires are even more difficult to fit than cap injectors, which doesn't really make sense.
Mund Richard
#851 - 2013-01-25 13:24:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Mag's wrote:
Indeed. Just took a look at EFT and the AAR although neat, still doesn't float my boat. I compared it to fits I've used in the past and tbh, it's underwhelming to say the least.

Just out of curiosity, another batch of irrelevant math that I'll prolly mess up.

To have both modules just finish their cycle, and worst case scenario (will kinda converge to this point after many-many reloads), took the moment the third reload finishes, which is after 450 seconds.

LAAR: 3 full reloads (so ready to pull ahead again a bit), 3*8*2,25*600 = 32.400 armor repaired.
T2 LAR: 450/11,25 = 40, 40*800 = 32.000... which is almost as much as the LAAR, at the cost of consuming cap ofc.

Funny part: a tipple-rep Hyperion needs two cap boosters to run for 10 mins, that could also sustain a third T2 LAR Roll
(ofc, at the cost of extra fitting, and much more vulnerability to neut)
Although... two cap consume about 3.5 m3's worth of charge per second (144m3 per 82 seconds per module )?
So it runs out of charges iiin... under 5 minutes, making the second cap booster not needed anyways, in which case using only one cap booster it runs out somewhere before 10 mins, and see wonder, that's about it's cap life with one cap booster two LARs and a LAAR.

Abaddon coincidentally has a lot more restricted cargohold, making cap boosting sustained repping less viable.

"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.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#852 - 2013-01-25 13:50:10 UTC
Stunning idea!

Why don't we make normal armour reppers immune from cap by having them all use Nanite Paste. That should help even things out with the ships that fly capless weaponry and passive tank.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#853 - 2013-01-25 14:02:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Apostrof Ahashion
[Abaddon super ****** setup mkII]
Co-Processor II
Co-Processor II
Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Capacitor Power Relay II
Capacitor Power Relay II

X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
EM Ward Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L
Mega Pulse Laser II, Scorch L

Large Processor Overclocking Unit I
Large Core Defense Operational Solidifier II
Large Core Defense Operational Solidifier I

Lol, armor tanking abadons, fail.
Mund Richard
#854 - 2013-01-25 14:15:26 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
[Abaddon super ****** setup mkII]
Capacitor Power Relay II

X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400

Lol, armor tanking abadons, fail.

Mhm.

"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.
Perihelion Olenard
#855 - 2013-01-25 14:55:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
The reason the PG requirements of the medium and large armor repairers were so high was so you didn't fit the repairer on a smaller ship. To fix that just place a limitation on the smallest ship that repairer can be fit on and reduce the PG requirements. In the description there would be a note saying the medium armor repairer cannot be fit to ships smaller than cruisers. I always found it interesting that the cruiser 800mm plate costs more PG than the cruiser medium armor repairer, but the battleship large armor repairer requires substantially more PG than the battleship 1600mm plate.

On another note, with the base and skill reduction of the mass of the 800mm plate and the PG reduction of the BCs, it may be worth fitting two of them to a BC instead of a single 1600mm plate. Sure, you'd be giving up a little HP and a low slot, but the ship will be far more agile.

Why should cruisers be rewarded for fitting their 800mm plate but battleships be punished for fitting their 1600mm plate after the plate base mass reduction? It should apply to all plates and not exclude a couple.
Zyella Stormborn
Green Seekers
#856 - 2013-01-25 14:58:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Zyella Stormborn
Untouchable Heart wrote:
Zyella Stormborn wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:

Example of idiotism.
And a 1600mm plate is a boss module ? Double facepalm.
Pls dont post anymore.



Constantly attacking people and / or throwing insults just about every post does not help the thread, or your credibility.

If you don't agree, or have a correction, break it down, and beat them up with your take on it, or your view. But please try to keep it civil. This thread so far is a great one with several different views, but its one that is being watched and read carefully by the Devs, and they are listening.

I'd hate to see it devolve into some troll flame fest just because you can not see someone elses view or disagree with it.

~Z



Idiotism is idiotism, no matter how you trying with your alt.
The 1600mm plate is a normal module.


? ?

1) <--- Main
2) I did not make any comments about the plate.
3) It's 'you're trying'

There is a special Hell for people like that, Right next to child molestors, and people that talk in the theater. ~Firefly
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#857 - 2013-01-25 15:11:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
The reason the PG requirements of the medium and large armor repairers were so high was so you didn't fit the repairer on a smaller ship.

Then this idea has utterly failed since one LAR only provides twice boost compared to MAR and if any cruiser could potentially cram in a battleship-sized module (at a cost of some trade-offs, like smaller guns or RCUs) then it surely could have just used 2 smaller reps instead. By that logic LARs could require 1k MW at most, that would already be enough to seriously discourage their usage at smaller ships, including battlecruisers.

It's not like LAR gives you anything special tanking-wise. Oversized ABs and MWDs do that for velocity, though Blink

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#858 - 2013-01-25 16:21:46 UTC
CPU increase going from medium to large armor rep: 28 -> 55 (+96%)
PG increase going from medium to large armor rep: 173 -> 2300 (+1229%)

CPU increase going from large to x-large shield booster: 115 -> 230 (+100%)
PG increase going from large to x-large shield booster: 165 -> 550 (+233%)

Evidently the powergrid requirements of large armor repairers are so high to make it impossible to fit them on cruisers because that would be overpowered Blink

Also note that 2x rep are roughly equal to shield booster + boost amp in terms of power, yet the boost amp is easy to fit.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#859 - 2013-01-25 16:44:27 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
CPU increase going from medium to large armor rep: 28 -> 55 (+96%)
PG increase going from medium to large armor rep: 173 -> 2300 (+1229%)

CPU increase going from large to x-large shield booster: 115 -> 230 (+100%)
PG increase going from large to x-large shield booster: 165 -> 550 (+233%)

Evidently the powergrid requirements of large armor repairers are so high to make it impossible to fit them on cruisers because that would be overpowered Blink

Also note that 2x rep are roughly equal to shield booster + boost amp in terms of power, yet the boost amp is easy to fit.



You know I must have looked at that many times, but like the elephant in the room, failed to see it. My word, armour reps get shafted. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#860 - 2013-01-25 16:45:04 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:

If you have logi support, why would you even consider active tanking?
Because the Hyperion will be faster and will be able to catch things that it wouldn't otherwise be able to catch if it were buffer tanked.