These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#961 - 2013-01-27 05:23:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Mund Richard wrote:

Although I don't remember when was the last time I heard of a single-repper BC/BS for PvP, and for multiple reppers you need a cap booster anyways, so this new module...

Done that both at CS and BS level last year. One of my favourite setups was Phoon of 200 DPS tanked and 40k EHP. Proper tanking is so much more fun than overtanking.
And you need a cap booster even for a single rep, btw.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
#962 - 2013-01-27 11:46:28 UTC
Akturous wrote:
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.


You know bonuses will never get nerfed, it's time to fix insane tank via nerf base rep amount, and deliver more madness to eve balance.

Why everyone bringing blob to chew classic aktive tanked ship? But not bringing blob when see regular passive tank lyke vagabond.



Fon Revedhort wrote:

Done that both at CS and BS level last year. One of my favourite setups was Phoon of 200 DPS tanked and 40k EHP. Proper tanking is so much more fun than overtanking.
And you need a cap booster even for a single rep, btw.


200? May be you mean 600?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#963 - 2013-01-27 12:08:33 UTC
Vizvig wrote:

You know bonuses will never get nerfed, it's time to fix insane tank via nerf base rep amount, and deliver more madness to eve balance.

Why everyone bringing blob to chew classic aktive tanked ship? But not bringing blob when see regular passive tank lyke vagabond.



You mean those bonuses of 5% per level which are being crashed right down to 2% most likely by the winter expansion?
CCP have already announced those intentions, though I guess if you change to a command ship instead you are still at 3%.
But boosts are getting cut either way. And possibly brought on grid this year.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#964 - 2013-01-27 13:43:59 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:

Curious I don't get those kind of defence numbers more like 458dps tank and something like 50seconds of cap with microwarpdrive off. How did you work it out?


Correct number is 476 hp/s and 2m30s cap, which is nearly 200 hp/s less than dual LASB on a Moa. While it lasts much longer, it's not even enough to tank it's own dps.

I withdraw my argument of med & large reppers not needing a rep amount buff and do my theorycrafting in a spreadsheet from now on.




.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#965 - 2013-01-27 13:48:56 UTC  |  Edited by: elitatwo
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
I really hope this entire burst active tanking modules shenanigans will be dropped completely. Active tanking is all about how much ehp will it get you in the timeframe of the fight. And whats the point of the whole approach, gives more at the start and then slowly falls behind, just fit a plate then. These modules will be impossible to balance, and even if you do balance them you will get something you already have in the game, buffer+rep fits. And they are not that great except maybe a couple, for example punisher fits made to solo cruisers/bc.

The opinion that active shield tanking is better because it repairs faster is wrong. Its better because it repairs more. LSBII+SBAII will repair 20% more than 2xMARII. Getting those repairs a couple of seconds faster will rarely save you in some situation but the real big difference is simply more ehp in a fight.
It will take LSBII+SBAII a minute to catch up in repair with LASB, in a ship that has unlimited cap so you can run them constantly, so in practice it is much more, the fight will be already over before that happens. And since you can fit two of them they are better in pve as well. They are not better because they are "burstier", they are better because they give you more ehp. The same deal is with proposed MAAR, MARII will never catch up with it even if you have unlimited cap and can run them for the whole reload time of MAAR.

Why not just buff repair of regular reps to bring them in line with shield booster and nerf ancillary shield booster fitting (to bring it in line with shield booster+capacitor booster fitting requiraments) and limit to one per ship, that would fix active tanking completely, will not break anything or give you huge balancing problems in the future.


Also this does not adress the problems of buffer thanking at all, and that is where the real problems are. Speed has much bigger impact in damage calculation that signature, not to mention other benefits it bring.
The problem is that mandatory propulsion mods, rig penalties for armor/shield tanking, mass of plates and mwd sig bloom basically negate the penalty of shield tanking and amplify the negative effects of armor tanking. This needs fixing.



Pretty much!

If you are concerned out that armor reps could get out of hand why don't we put a buffed version of the medium and large armor repairers on SiSi and see how it goes?
Think of it as a trial and error on balancing active armor reps.

My proposals on medium and large armor reps would be:
- medium armor repairer
-> decreased cycle time from 12 to 8 seconds
-> capacitor usage decreased from 160 to 80 capcitor (you still need two reppers to make them work which is 2x as taxing as one shield booster)

- large amor repairer
-> decreased cycle time from 15 to 10 seconds
-> decreased capacitor usage from 400 to 300 capacitor

If those changes would get out of hand with active reps we should know soon enough and you should have enough time to tweak some values across the board.
Feel free to discuss.

Fitting tools can tell you only so much and your eft/pyfa values may tell you amazing things that will most likely never occur once you are in space and have to manage the mods

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#966 - 2013-01-27 13:58:34 UTC
Roime wrote:


I withdraw my argument of med & large reppers not needing a rep amount buff and do my theorycrafting in a spreadsheet from now on.


I'd say that a modest increase to rep amount (no more than 10%) as well as a small decrease in cap consumption should be in order. Combined with the reduction in grid of medium and large reppers this should be enough to make the modules competitive w/o making anything glaringly over powered.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#967 - 2013-01-27 16:52:15 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Roime wrote:


I withdraw my argument of med & large reppers not needing a rep amount buff and do my theorycrafting in a spreadsheet from now on.


I'd say that a modest increase to rep amount (no more than 10%) as well as a small decrease in cap consumption should be in order. Combined with the reduction in grid of medium and large reppers this should be enough to make the modules competitive w/o making anything glaringly over powered.


I agree that just a little bit of more reps would be enough. Then if the oversizing-related problem of XLASBs is fixed (they aren't OP on battleships), we'd be looking at a very much improved situation.

.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#968 - 2013-01-27 17:32:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Armor repairers are meant to be more sustainable, whereas shield bosters are meant to have a stronger peak tank.

If we compare the cap efficiency though, a T2 shield booster + boost amp combo has 13% higher cap efficiency compared to double reps of the equivalent size, while also having a 14.75% stronger tank.

The only thing that makes armor repairs "more sustainable" are cap recharge mods, which don't apply in PvP except on capitals.

The capacitor usage of of small, medium and large armor repairers should be reduced. That will give active armor tanking in PvP the edge in sustainability it is supposed to have. Active armor tanks in PvE could use the buff as well, since they are clearly less popular than shield tanks.
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#969 - 2013-01-27 21:23:48 UTC
Looks like I might have a reason to train Thermodynamics to V now

Oderint Dum Metuant
Mag's
Azn Empire
#970 - 2013-01-27 21:39:52 UTC
Aralieus wrote:
Looks like I might have a reason to train Thermodynamics to V now
Indeed. It will help with all th ASBs I'll be fitting, if these changes don't improve. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Arkenai Wyrnspire
Incorruptibles
#971 - 2013-01-27 22:48:03 UTC
Eh. The AAR seems a little weak compared to the ASB. It doesn't tank more and it's cap reliant. Sure, it can run a little longer and it has an ability to run on after the nanite paste runs out, but repping 45 hp per cycle isn't very good. Also, thinking about frigates, by the time the AAR runs out of paste there isn't enough cap to rep much more. That kind of negates the advantage, surely?

It's a nice buff, but it doesn't seem sufficient.

Someone.
Mund Richard
#972 - 2013-01-28 00:45:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
Although I don't remember when was the last time I heard of a single-repper BC/BS for PvP, and for multiple reppers you need a cap booster anyways, so this new module...
Done that both at CS and BS level last year. One of my favourite setups was Phoon of 200 DPS tanked and 40k EHP. Proper tanking is so much more fun than overtanking.
And you need a cap booster even for a single rep, btw.

Though for a Phoon kiting, you need the cap booster just to run the MWD. Roll

"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.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#973 - 2013-01-28 00:53:55 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Was taking the AAR into account, so one repper = capless (on BS level a "no-brainer", as reps like a T2, only more spikey).

Though for a Phoon kiting, you need the cap booster just to run the MWD. Roll
Errr..... the AAR still requires cap to run. It's not capless. Same cap requirements as a normal armor repper. Just reps more when loaded, and less when not.
Mund Richard
#974 - 2013-01-28 00:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
Was taking the AAR into account, so one repper = capless (on BS level a "no-brainer", as reps like a T2, only more spikey).

Though for a Phoon kiting, you need the cap booster just to run the MWD. Roll
Errr..... the AAR still requires cap to run. It's not capless. Same cap requirements as a normal armor repper. Just reps more when loaded, and less when not.

:mazzive facepalm:

Doubt I failed reading comprehension so badly since I started playing.

oook...
What's the point of the AAR again?
Live longer before the first batch of charges run out, die afterwards more easily?

"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.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#975 - 2013-01-28 01:02:17 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
:mazzive facepalm:

Doubt I failed reading comprehension so badly since I started playing.

oook...
What's the point of the AAR again?
Live longer before the first batch of charges run out, die afterwards more easily?
Eh, pretty easy mistake to make tbh. Wouldn't sweat it.

As for the point of it? Reps more for a brief period of time. *shrug*

Personally I kinda like the suggestion of just applying the AAR mechanics to all current armor reps and forget adding in a new mod. But w/e. Fozzie will come up with something.
Edward Pierce
State War Academy
Caldari State
#976 - 2013-01-28 01:03:50 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
Was taking the AAR into account, so one repper = capless (on BS level a "no-brainer", as reps like a T2, only more spikey).

Though for a Phoon kiting, you need the cap booster just to run the MWD. Roll
Errr..... the AAR still requires cap to run. It's not capless. Same cap requirements as a normal armor repper. Just reps more when loaded, and less when not.

:mazzive facepalm:

Doubt I failed reading comprehension so badly since I started playing.

oook...
What's the point of the AAR again?
Live longer before the first batch of charges run out, die afterwards more easily?

You can load it with paste and it reps almost 3x what a normal repper will, so you can get the 3x rep effect from just 2 reps.

This effectively frees up a low and reduces the cap usage to 2/3 of what it would be if you had a 3x rep setup.
Mund Richard
#977 - 2013-01-28 01:12:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Edward Pierce wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
oook...
What's the point of the AAR again?
Live longer before the first batch of charges run out, die afterwards more easily?

You can load it with paste and it reps almost 3x what a normal repper will, so you can get the 3x rep effect from just 2 reps.
This effectively frees up a low and reduces the cap usage to 2/3 of what it would be if you had a 3x rep setup.

1) It fits easier than a T2 repper
2) While loaded, it reps 2,25/1,333 = 1,6875 times better than a T2 repper.
Falls behind on SAR fairly fast, MAR it takes longer, LAAR can keep up.

So I guess...
LAR : Because it's just as good as T2 even in the long run.
SAR : Because if you're lucky, the fight will be over before the T2 would catch up.
MAR : Still thinking on that one. Suppose same as with the SAR, you bet on the enemy to not last long enough for the flaw to show up.

"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.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#978 - 2013-01-28 04:22:43 UTC
Perhaps part of the issue with the ASB is missiles vs guns and CPU vs PG?

Compare:
HAM II: 113 PG, 50 CPU
Heavy Neutron Blaster II: 187 PG, 33 CPU
425mm Autocannon II: 154 PG, 25 CPU

On a missile boat, like a drake or caracal, I find myself limited more by CPU than by PG. Hardeners are cheap on PG, but chew CPU. After Shield Upgrades, an LASB consumes similar PG to a LSE II, but with over double the CPU.

In contrast, I find that PG is often the limiting factor on gunships. Swapping from an armour to shield tank on a gunship moves the primary tank limit from PG to CPU. If said ship happens to be tight on PG but has spare CPU, this is an immediate and noticeable booster.

I realise that gunships usually have more PG / less CPU than missile boats, but gunship with shield tank does allow some finessing options between the fitting limits than armor-tanked gunships and shield-tanked missile ships don't have.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Vayn Baxtor
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#979 - 2013-01-28 05:20:04 UTC
Probably asking for too much, but could we see some small +5%' or 10%'ish resists for the plates below 400mm?
Would give the small ships some more interests in fitting them for armor tank reasons. Just a bone that could be tossed.

Overall, "sounds good to me", regarding these general armor changes.

Wish we could see a lot more use of PI-products as secondary ammo like with Nanite Repair Paste here.

Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.

Allandri
Liandri Industrial
#980 - 2013-01-28 06:58:36 UTC
Replacing the speed penalty with an acceleration/agility penalty comes across as common sense.