These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#921 - 2013-01-26 06:20:08 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

The same way you do now, a few nuets.

May be bring few motherships (with neuts) is will be better?

That thing fears only 4+ neuts.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#922 - 2013-01-26 08:47:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
If I wanted to realistically max out shield tanking, I would train the following

Shield Operation V
Shield Upgrades V
Shield Management V
Tactical Shield Manipulation IV
Shield Compensation V
All compensation skills IV

Most people won't max out the shield compensation skills.

Total sp: 2.58 milion

Dedicated frigate pilots might train EM compensation to V, which brings the total to 3 milion.
If you decide to max out the shield compensation skills (a highly questionable investment), the total raises to 4.27 milion



For armor on the other hand I want max compensation skills because they will affect nearly every ship I fly.

Repair Systems V
Armor Upgrades V
Armor Resistance Phasing IV
Mechanics V
All compensation skills V

Total sp: 3.21 milion

If you decide to max out Armor Resistance Phasing (a highly questionable investment) then the total sp raises to 3.81 milion.

Realistically armor tankers will already invest more sp because the compensation skills are actually important for them. Similarly, the new Armor Upgrades skill will affect every buffer tanked armor ship. In contrast, the shield compensation skills are highly situational.

Recommendation: the new Armor Upgrades skill should at most be a rank 1 skill, or its effect baked into the existing plates.
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#923 - 2013-01-26 09:14:36 UTC
The ARR and its stupid restrictions (cap use and 1 per ship limit) these can be solved by giving the ASB the same handicaps.

At least some advantage is gained from using nanite paste instead of cap boosters.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#924 - 2013-01-26 11:22:11 UTC
Let's face it, the new skill is unwanted and completely unnecessary.

The only time I would consider that skill to be worth it in game terms, is if it was 50% at level 5 instead of 25%.
As I very much doubt that's going to happen, please take it out completely.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#925 - 2013-01-26 11:28:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Rick Rymes wrote:
The ARR and its stupid restrictions (cap use and 1 per ship limit) these can be solved by giving the ASB the same handicaps.

At least some advantage is gained from using nanite paste instead of cap boosters.

I don't care much about the neut immunity of the ASB. What I don't like is that we can only fit 1 AAR, whereas they can fit as many as they like. Let's face it, shield module balance is just as important to this as armour itself.

They should restricted both to the maximum of 2 per ship or even just 1. Boosted the amount the AAR gives to 3 * t1, then reduced large armour rep PG fitting by 20%. If that happened, we'd start to see some actual improvements and I'd be happier.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#926 - 2013-01-26 11:45:37 UTC
Mag's wrote:
I don't care much about the neut immunity of the ASB. What I don't like is that we can only fit 1 AAR, whereas they can fit as many as they like. Let's face it, shield module balance is just as important to this as armour itself.

They should restricted both to the maximum of 2 per ship or even just 1. Boosted the amount the AAR gives to 3 * t1, then reduced large armour rep PG fitting by 20%. If that happened, we'd start to see some actual improvements and I'd be happier.


It is the main weakness, and they are pre-nerfing the ARR with the limit, a limit that has been recommended to the ASB multiple times yet they instead remover charge amount completely destroying single ASB fits.

Cap use would be nice just so that neuts are more useful, and so that the neut resistance on cap boosters are more useful.
wallenbergaren
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#927 - 2013-01-26 11:47:22 UTC
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. 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.


The play the same role in the tracking formula and it should perhaps be revised. With enough webbing signature radius becomes completely irrelevant. Perhaps this is intentional but with strength bonused webs it means that even the largest guns in the game can hit the smallest ships in the game and it's becoming a problem. In my opinion signature radius should provide a minimum damage reduction against larger turrets, the same way missiles work.
Captain Semper
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#928 - 2013-01-26 11:50:08 UTC
I dont understand why you so over overexcite about active tanking. Its small part of PvP\PvE in EvE and (for me) not so important as buffer armor tank and ship balance that occurs because of this.
Gallent ships is worse for fleet PvP. Ammar ships better but coz of the design of armor tanking (all their ridiculous penalty and deficiency of low slots for smth esle instead of tanking to be effective).

Most useful ships in pvp matar and caldari.

CCP, tell me. Why i want to chose armor tank instead of shield tank? Shield better in all ways.
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#929 - 2013-01-26 11:50:37 UTC
Vizvig wrote:
If today hyperions perma tanking 2-3k DPS, how we will be counter them tomorrow?

You have to think about it.


You cannot balance ships around the insane tank they get with maxed t3 bonuses. If people think the tanks too much (which it f u c king isn't, because everyone brings a blob when they see a classic active tanked ship) then bonuses need addressing (which they are being).

You know without bonuses, just a lowely set of low grade crystals and a DG large booster, a sleip only tanks 551 dps and it's not even cap stable tanking that. So a command ship with a faction booster can't even tank a drake, a god damn drake. If you use asb you can't sustain your tank long enough now with the nerf to booster volume.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#930 - 2013-01-26 11:55:59 UTC
wallenbergaren wrote:
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. 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.


The play the same role in the tracking formula and it should perhaps be revised. With enough webbing signature radius becomes completely irrelevant. Perhaps this is intentional but with strength bonused webs it means that even the largest guns in the game can hit the smallest ships in the game and it's becoming a problem. In my opinion signature radius should provide a minimum damage reduction against larger turrets, the same way missiles work.


If a target is moving at no speed it will be hit regardless to signature radius. Your problem is with the tracking equation and/or webifier mechanics.

Plus this is the armor tanking forum so this is a bit redundant.

And if sig radus was such a problem then CCP would be changing the rig penalty's to mass/speed. and the TP would be a useful EWAR.

With the exception of dreadnought blapping, its not that big of a deal
Mag's
Azn Empire
#931 - 2013-01-26 12:03:10 UTC
Rick Rymes wrote:
Mag's wrote:
I don't care much about the neut immunity of the ASB. What I don't like is that we can only fit 1 AAR, whereas they can fit as many as they like. Let's face it, shield module balance is just as important to this as armour itself.

They should restricted both to the maximum of 2 per ship or even just 1. Boosted the amount the AAR gives to 3 * t1, then reduced large armour rep PG fitting by 20%. If that happened, we'd start to see some actual improvements and I'd be happier.


It is the main weakness, and they are pre-nerfing the ARR with the limit, a limit that has been recommended to the ASB multiple times yet they instead remover charge amount completely destroying single ASB fits.

Cap use would be nice just so that neuts are more useful, and so that the neut resistance on cap boosters are more useful.
My point is more about flavour. We have the advantage that we use paste and could carry more. They have the advantage that they are immune to neuts, but are limited to how many boosters they carry. That's why I'm fine with the neut immunity.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#932 - 2013-01-26 12:14:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rick Rymes
Mag's wrote:

My point is more about flavour. We have the advantage that we use paste and could carry more. They have the advantage that they are immune to neuts, but are limited to how many boosters they carry. That's why I'm fine with the neut immunity.


Using nanite paste is great and all and if lets say they limited ASB's to 1 per ship then im all for giving them neut immunity.

But to get comparable repping power (with greater sustain for armor, burst for shield) you need a cap booster, which also holds charges along with the nanites for the ARR, which is susceptible to cap warfare, just seems a little lopsided.

Of courses the best outcome is if there was no cap for the ARR either, which would do volumes for the punisher, since its reliant on cap and can run it rep independent of its guns.

You are right but the are more angles to this, why should shield have better speed/damage and cap immunity.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#933 - 2013-01-26 12:44:29 UTC
Rick Rymes wrote:
Mag's wrote:

My point is more about flavour. We have the advantage that we use paste and could carry more. They have the advantage that they are immune to neuts, but are limited to how many boosters they carry. That's why I'm fine with the neut immunity.


Using nanite paste is great and all and if lets say they limited ASB's to 1 per ship then im all for giving them neut immunity.

But to get comparable repping power (with greater sustain for armor, burst for shield) you need a cap booster, which also holds charges along with the nanites for the ARR, which is susceptible to cap warfare, just seems a little lopsided.

Of courses the best outcome is if there was no cap for the ARR either, which would do volumes for the punisher, since its reliant on cap and can run it rep independent of its guns.

You are right but the are more angles to this, why should shield have better speed/damage and cap immunity.
Oh I agree, which is why I mentioned the restriction we have of only 1 AAR while the ASB can fit multiple units. If those restrictions were equal, neut immunity can stay as far as I'm concerned. As it stands now you are right, it is too lopsided.

This may be an armour tanking thread, but the fact that the ASB is so OP in comparison to the new AAR, needs to be addressed at the same time. Not necessarily changed now, simply stating it will change would be fine and show balance is going to be made.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#934 - 2013-01-26 12:48:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Post redacted until I rerun the numbers.

.
Rick Rymes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#935 - 2013-01-26 12:51:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Rick Rymes
Mag's wrote:

Oh I agree, which is why I mentioned the restriction we have of only 1 AAR while the ASB can fit multiple units. If those restrictions were equal, neut immunity can stay as far as I'm concerned. As it stands now you are right, it is too lopsided.

This may be an armour tanking thread, but the fact that the ASB is so OP in comparison to the new AAR, needs to be addressed at the same time. Not necessarily changed now, simply stating it will change would be fine and show balance is going to be made.


A small victory for civil posting :)
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#936 - 2013-01-26 12:52:54 UTC
wallenbergaren wrote:
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. 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.


The play the same role in the tracking formula and it should perhaps be revised. With enough webbing signature radius becomes completely irrelevant. Perhaps this is intentional but with strength bonused webs it means that even the largest guns in the game can hit the smallest ships in the game and it's becoming a problem. In my opinion signature radius should provide a minimum damage reduction against larger turrets, the same way missiles work.


I'm of the opinion that webs are a little OP they should be treated like e-war and only really useful on bonused ships and that there is some sort of counter personally i would advocate the afterburner for this give it some resistance to web strength aswell as a buff to speed and mass reducement having the same mass a a mwd makes no sense considering how much weaker it is.

'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

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#937 - 2013-01-26 12:54:14 UTC
Vizvig wrote:
If today hyperions perma tanking 2-3k DPS, how we will be counter them tomorrow?

You have to think about it.



Like you do already against xl-asb vagabonds, double xl-asb sleipnirs and everything able to fit at least 2 large ASBs?

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#938 - 2013-01-26 12:54:50 UTC
Also brb, buying more Astartes.

.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#939 - 2013-01-26 12:57:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
Also wondering if the warfare links and all armour rigs will actually affect the MAAR as they don't all work with ASB's last time i checked on eve hq

'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

Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#940 - 2013-01-26 13:03:00 UTC
I'd blame EVE HQ

It's really not the best fitting tool imho. Pyfa and EFT are the industry standards.

.