These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#881 - 2013-01-25 18:57:35 UTC
Could anyone of devs comment - why should Reactive Armor Hardener have so desperate cap consumption?
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#882 - 2013-01-25 19:11:40 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:


Moa (electron blaster fit): 516.5/522.5 CPU, 1086/1168.75, has an XLASB (TWICE oversized module) with one Co-Proc and one Ancil rig (fit has T2 MagStab, T2 TE, T2 Co-Proc in the lows, T2 MWD, web, scram, T2 invuln and XLASB, 5T2 Heavy Roll Electron Blaster two shield rigs and the ancil)
Apparently, DOUBLE-oversizing is possible.



You're using electron blasters. You are almost all tank, not much gank. No range, either. And the Moa is also not notable for being fast, at all.

How much DPS does this thing have? How much tank does it have when you run out of cap boosters? Basically if you're in something that can lay down DPS onto the Moa and make it USE those cap boosters and get it into a point where it will have to reload, you'll probably just completely destroy it.

At the same time, did you know that the 1600mm plate is roughly the buffer equivalent of X-large active shield tanking modules?

That's right, when you slap 1600 plates on your Mallers or whatever, you're fitting twice oversized modules.

So maybe this is actually a case of 'proper' sized modules not benefitting the ships enough.
Perihelion Olenard
#883 - 2013-01-25 19:13:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Could anyone of devs comment - why should Reactive Armor Hardener have so desperate cap consumption?

I wouldn't mind seeing a tech 2 version that starts out at 20% resists with the same capacitor usage as the tech 1. Also, the skill still increases the capacitor consumption. Just not as much as it used to.
Mund Richard
#884 - 2013-01-25 19:15:02 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Could anyone of devs comment - why should Reactive Armor Hardener have so desperate cap consumption?

I wouldn't mind seeing a tech 2 version that starts out at 20% resists with the same capacitor usage as the tech 1. Also, the skill still increases the capacitor consumption. Just not as much as it used to.

80% hardening when fighting against a Drake in magical 1v1 land.
That would be a tad bit brutal.

Not that I would mind if I'm not in the Drake Twisted

"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.
Mund Richard
#885 - 2013-01-25 19:27:43 UTC
Aglais wrote:
You're using electron blasters. You are almost all tank, not much gank. No range, either. And the Moa is also not notable for being fast, at all.
How much DPS does this thing have? How much tank does it have when you run out of cap boosters? Basically if you're in something that can lay down DPS onto the Moa and make it USE those cap boosters and get it into a point where it will have to reload, you'll probably just completely destroy it.
At the same time, did you know that the 1600mm plate is roughly the buffer equivalent of X-large active shield tanking modules?
That's right, when you slap 1600 plates on your Mallers or whatever, you're fitting twice oversized modules.
So maybe this is actually a case of 'proper' sized modules not benefitting the ships enough.

Well, I was just picking the first cruiser I could, to show that it can fit prop, tackle, guns and damage mods, while having a twice larger repper.
An armor BC can't do that with the same Ions and a LAR.
How well that Moa performs was somewhat besides my point.

If I had used a Ferox vs Brutix comparison, the Ferox would be able to fit the XL with one rig, and Ions (while using the traditional modules),
while the Brutix even with 3 PG rigs can't fit more than one gun and no MWD at all after a LAR, so it's not viable at all.


Your point that cruisers can fit 1600 plates while LSE is only better than the 800 is valid, and it is something I do mind as well.

Back to Electrons, a tripple-rep Hyper is currently viable only with Electrons only as well, so the trade-off wasn't that brutal with the Moa.

"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.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#886 - 2013-01-25 19:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Speaking of deadspace mods. Will deadspace shield tanking mods ever be adjusted? It's shocking how much of an improvement they are compared to deadspace armor tanking mods.

Upgrading from Medium Shield Booster II to the Pithum A-type Medium Shield Booster:
Boost Amount: 90 -> 228 (+153%)
Shield/cap: 1.66 -> 4.2 (+153%)
CPU: 58 -> 65
PG: 13 -> 12

Upgrading from Medium Armor Repairer II to the Corpum A-type Medium Armor Repairer:
Repair Amount: 320 -> 468 (+46%)
Cap cost: 160 -> 180 (+12.5%)
Armor/cap: 2 -> 2.6 (+30%)
CPU: 28 -> 23
PG: 173 -> 195


It's like the designers decided to make the medium shield booster normally used on frigates competitive with cruiser armor tanking modules because in terms of amount repaired/sec, 2x Corpum A-type medium reps are equal to a Pithum A-type medium shield booster plus Pithum A-type boost amp combo.

Essentially, it's like being able to oversize three times over.
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#887 - 2013-01-25 19:40:58 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:
The ability to fit Pith X-Type X-Large Shield Booster(twice oversized modul !!!!) at a Tengu (or BC) is compareble to fit
[Legion, New Setup 1]
6* TACHION BEAM LASER

I guess the issue of oversized modules deserves separate discussion. You cant address everything at once.

In general I agree for Tachions or other oversized moduls.

But the ability to fit oversized boosters (large instead of med for example) while it is totaly imposible to fit oversized reps (large rep instead of med rep) is part of the inbalance between booster and reps. And as they are part of ... they should (better MUST) be part of the hole "Armor Tanking 1.5" program.

I don't want boosters to be nerved!
I just want rep fitting cost to be adressed. Much more then just 10% or 20%.

Punisher with 1 med rep? HELL YES!

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#888 - 2013-01-25 19:44:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
New update, we're planning at the moment to reduce the powergrid use on medium and large armor reps.

Mediums by 20%
Larges by 10%


This should help at least Brutix and Myrm to fit MAAR and middle guns, and Hype as well, with the new mod and rigs cool.



.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#889 - 2013-01-25 19:50:29 UTC
@Mund Richard:

Honestly, I think now that the root of this entire problem is the attempt to force armor and shields to be different by making them scale differently and also the inclusion of 'X-large' modules exclusive to one that don't exist in the other. 1600mm armor plate vs. LSE. X-large shield booster vs. large armor repairer. Honestly I think these are two sides of the same problem-coin here. By trying to state that one is built for active tanking but the other passive, and then trying to make them balanced... Well that doesn't sound easy, at all.

There have to be other ways to promote the fact that armor and shield are fundamentally different, but NOT by keeping them so asymmetrical like this. It'll add SOME homogenization which is not the greatest thing, but at the same time that'd solve problems.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#890 - 2013-01-25 20:11:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Aglais wrote:
@Mund Richard:

Honestly, I think now that the root of this entire problem is the attempt to force armor and shields to be different by making them scale differently and also the inclusion of 'X-large' modules exclusive to one that don't exist in the other. 1600mm armor plate vs. LSE. X-large shield booster vs. large armor repairer. Honestly I think these are two sides of the same problem-coin here. By trying to state that one is built for active tanking but the other passive, and then trying to make them balanced... Well that doesn't sound easy, at all.

There have to be other ways to promote the fact that armor and shield are fundamentally different, but NOT by keeping them so asymmetrical like this. It'll add SOME homogenization which is not the greatest thing, but at the same time that'd solve problems.


I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice this contradiction. Oversized shield boosters are imbalanced by design. They DOUBLE the tank when fitted.

You cannot on one hand allow oversized shield boosters and on the other hand pretend like you're "balancing" armor tanking. It's not going to be balanced until they aren't miles apart in effectiveness. At that point you might as well disallow oversizing and rebalance the "regular sized" mods within each ship class against each other.

Also what's strange is that armor tanking is described as more sustainable. This is technically false. A shield booster + boost amp has a slightly better efficiency than an armor rep. So where does the idea that armor is more sustainable come from? Because armor tanks can fit cap relays and cap rechargers, but in PvP this is never applicable unless you're flying a carrier.

The concept of oversized armor plates is less problematic because their effect on EHP isn't as dramatic, and EANMs vs Invulnerability Fields, penalties, shield regeneration and remote rep mechanics go a long way to reduce the advantage of the oversized plates.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#891 - 2013-01-25 20:12:50 UTC
Jojo Jackson wrote:

Just as EFT-playaround: try this with a Legion or Proteus (armor tanked)
[Tengu, New Setup 1]
3*Ballistic Control System II
Co-Processor II

1MN Afterburner II
Pith X-Type X-Large Shield Booster(twice oversized modul !!!!)
Shield Boost Amplifier II
2*Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

5*Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
[empty high slot]

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Semiconductor Memory Cell I

Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

2021 defence !!!!
42 sec cap with all active
593 Firepower
CPU and PG left !!!!


Dude, you may have successfully oversized your booster, but undersized your afterburner Big smile






.
Mund Richard
#892 - 2013-01-25 20:37:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Aglais wrote:
@Mund Richard:

Honestly, I think now that the root of this entire problem is the attempt to force armor and shields to be different by making them scale differently and also the inclusion of 'X-large' modules exclusive to one that don't exist in the other. 1600mm armor plate vs. LSE. X-large shield booster vs. large armor repairer. Honestly I think these are two sides of the same problem-coin here. By trying to state that one is built for active tanking but the other passive, and then trying to make them balanced... Well that doesn't sound easy, at all.

There have to be other ways to promote the fact that armor and shield are fundamentally different, but NOT by keeping them so asymmetrical like this. It'll add SOME homogenization which is not the greatest thing, but at the same time that'd solve problems.


I'm glad that I'm not the only one to notice this contradiction. Oversized shield boosters are imbalanced by design. They DOUBLE the tank when fitted.

You cannot on one hand allow oversized shield boosters and on the other hand pretend like you're "balancing" armor tanking. It's not going to be balanced until they aren't miles apart in effectiveness. At that point you might as well disallow oversizing and balance the existing mods within each ship class.

Also what's strange is that armor tanking is described as more sustainable. This is technically false. A shield booster + boost amp has a slightly better efficiency than an armor rep. So where does the idea that armor is more sustainable come from? Because armor tanks can fit cap relays and cap rechargers, but in PvP this is never applicable unless you're flying a carrier.

The concept of oversized armor plates kind of works because because their effect on EHP isn't that drastic, and EANMs vs Invulnerability Fields as well as the penalties and shield regeneration go a long way to reduce the advantage.

Not to mention that XLASB is the norm for a shield BC, while for armor it's 2-3 MARs.
Sure, with 3 MARs you get more rep than a single XLASB, but you also need a cap booster to run them.
XLASB: 1 module, 200/500 fitting, at worst 84 hp/sec just after reload (when it's ready to operate again)
x3MAR: 4 modules, 109/684 fitting, 106 hp/sec
Does the XLASB need fitting modules? Ok, you have 3 more slots than the x3MAR+MCB.
Would you also add a T2 SBA to it? suddenly at the cost of 2-3 modules, it reps better as well!

The new armor module won't change this ratio (and you will still need the cap booster), as it's worst-case scenario (and I did use it for the XLASB to show it in a bad light) is equal to a T2 repper within an acceptable margin of error.

"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.
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#893 - 2013-01-25 20:49:20 UTC
Roime wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:

Just as EFT-playaround: try this with a Legion or Proteus (armor tanked)
[Tengu, New Setup 1]
3*Ballistic Control System II
Co-Processor II

1MN Afterburner II
Pith X-Type X-Large Shield Booster(twice oversized modul !!!!)
Shield Boost Amplifier II
2*Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

5*Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Scourge Heavy Assault Missile
[empty high slot]

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Semiconductor Memory Cell I

Tengu Defensive - Adaptive Shielding
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Tengu Offensive - Accelerated Ejection Bay
Tengu Propulsion - Fuel Catalyst

2021 defence !!!!
42 sec cap with all active
593 Firepower
CPU and PG left !!!!


Dude, you may have successfully oversized your booster, but undersized your afterburner Big smile

Wooooops :D.
And I wondered why this Tengu is THAT slow with active AB ;).

But shouldn't change to much as it's still very easy to fit with 10mn AB.

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#894 - 2013-01-25 21:26:46 UTC
so.... what if we would be able to disable our shields to increase cap recharge rate. Could be a fun option to buff active armor tanks, esp those with few medium slots.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#895 - 2013-01-25 22:11:40 UTC
EFT Warrioring.

Medium Guns, Oversized repper, think this fits.

1383dps overheated tank for as long as the repper has paste.

617dps, 1520m/s

[Proteus, Large Repper]
Damage Control II
Large Ancillary Armor Repairer
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane

Corelum C-Type 10MN Microwarpdrive
Republic Fleet Warp Scrambler
Dark Blood Medium Capacitor Booster, Navy Cap Booster 800

Dual 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Small Nosferatu II
Dual 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Dual 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Small Nosferatu II
Dual 150mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Medium Ancillary Current Router II
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump II

Proteus Defensive - Nanobot Injector
Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor
Proteus Engineering - Power Core Multiplier
Proteus Offensive - Drone Synthesis Projector
Proteus Propulsion - Localized Injectors


Hammerhead II x2
Hobgoblin II x1
Ogre II x2
Valkyrie II x5

Seriously though you may be better with MAAR and Dual or single MAR setup, the Grid change is a nice little boost for active armour tanking without fancy gimmicks.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#896 - 2013-01-25 22:12:17 UTC
Aglais wrote:
You're using electron blasters. You are almost all tank, not much gank. No range, either. And the Moa is also not notable for being fast, at all.

How much DPS does this thing have? How much tank does it have when you run out of cap boosters? Basically if you're in something that can lay down DPS onto the Moa and make it USE those cap boosters and get it into a point where it will have to reload, you'll probably just completely destroy it.
You can actually do a XLASB Moa with Ions, MWD, Invuln, Web & Scram if you use 2 ACR an Overclock and CoPro. Does 500dps with faction AM, reps 1/3 of it's shields every booster cycle, goes 1500m/s+, and is cap stable without the MWD running. Still the tank is actually inferior to the dual-LSE Neutron Moa (unless the XLASB survives a reload). But ASB does have the advantage of lower Sig Radius and superior tackle. So XLASB isn't THAT broken on ships with no booster bonus. But put one (or two!) on a Sleip with it's T2 Minnie resists and it starts getting silly.
Mund Richard
#897 - 2013-01-25 22:12:29 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
so.... what if we would be able to disable our shields to increase cap recharge rate. Could be a fun option to buff active armor tanks, esp those with few medium slots.

A reverse Shield Power Relay?
Sounds fun, but mainly for PvE, as I'm not sure what kind of PvP fit would need such a "mild" bonus over a cap booster (assuming you can fit one at all).

"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.
Mund Richard
#898 - 2013-01-25 22:19:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
But put one (or two!) on a Sleip with it's T2 Minnie resists and it starts getting silly.

Not that I don't agree with the sentence (I do, even the Cyclone had crazy fits before it had it's grid toned down a bit), but it's sounding similar to what some shield-tankers say about armor buffering being OP:
Double-plated armorpumped EAMN+DCd Damnation with it's Amarr resist profile, amarr resist bonus, and hull health bonus made even more glaring with slaves and it's Armored Warfare links going over 500k EHP.

"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.
Naomi Anthar
#899 - 2013-01-25 22:22:28 UTC
" Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates (including 1600mm) and is separate from the stat change listed below."

MAKE IT RANK 1 . I'm not asking. It's straight forward demand. I'm one of new players. But i can already tell you there is enough to train. Making it rank 3 is pain for training. It's like we train skill that shield tanking people don't need at all. There is no need to for it be rank 3 , not at all. Fix. Thanks.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#900 - 2013-01-25 22:47:58 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
...
So Fozzie, how about no PG for plates and no cap use for reppers (just nanite paste).

So you'd have nothing against cruisers fitting 3-4 1600mm plates for an absolutely absurd amount of HP?


Nope not at all, on the grounds that other penalties apply, such as inertia/agility and as mentioned in my other posts acceleration. If you are dumb enough to stick 1600mm plates on a frig then good luck, it would be so heavy and so difficult to move or point at anything those 1600mm plates wont matter that much. If plates mass more than the ship then that genuinely is stupid enough to warrant a Darwin award for naturally self selecting.

I just think that acceleration/agility/inertia can be made just as powerful as penalties as PG with the right mechanic.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...