These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1161 - 2013-02-03 11:05:28 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
It has been suggested to make the ASB cost some cap even when loaded. That sounds very reasonable at first, but it would make ASB fits MORE vulnerable to energy neutralizing compared to a SB+cap booster combo. Once they get low on cap, there is no recovery because they wouldn't be able to fire the ASB even with charges loaded. Not a good idea.

Fair enough. Alright, what about this:
1) Base activation (without charge) = 600 GJ.
2) Activation with 400 boosters = 200 GJ.
3) Activation with 800 boosters = negative 200 GJ, i.e. your cap increases.
Now you have to decide either to fit more charges and be neut-vulnerable, or less charges and have spare cap.

As for over-sizing, lets just increase PG requirements up to a level of appropriate cap-booster, for example XL-ASB would take 1750 MW.
Captain Semper
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#1162 - 2013-02-03 11:12:37 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:

As for over-sizing, lets just increase PG requirements up to a level of appropriate cap-booster, for example XL-ASB would take 1750 MW.

Or reduce PG req for LAR\LAAR to 500. I want oversized armor rep on crus\BC Cool
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#1163 - 2013-02-03 12:50:13 UTC
Over sizing is a huge issue in this argument. Almost every ship has very similar PG - CPU tends to double with each hull size increase, but powergrid increase by a factor of 10 or so. This means that the fitting restrictions of larger modules being put on smaller ships is largely dictated by PG and not CPU. So shield tanking is massively high on CPU usage, but low on PG usage. This allows smaller hulls than a battleship to squeeze on BS sized tanking modules. However this does not translate to armor rep's.

Regardless we are left with a situation where shield tanking doesn't need lo-slots to be effect, but armor tanking DOES need mid slots to be effective (via cap boosters). So i have an idea, since active shield tanking does need toned down:

1) Decrease the rep per cycle of shield boosters, also reduce cap usage to compensate.
Why?) This means they keep cap stability but need to fit more slots somewhere else on the ship to tank more DPS
2) Change Power Diagnostics to increase shield boost amount significantly, around 10%-15% per module (standard stacking penalties)
Why?) Now to achieve more tank, lo-slots have to be used, which balances out ships with 3-4 mids using over-sized ASB's and lots of damage mods - Also means that ships with more mids will fit SBA's instead of the obligatory second ASB or just more resists.

This make any sense?
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1164 - 2013-02-03 13:24:51 UTC
In addition to my previous post, another "obvious" alternative is to disallow oversizing of ASBs.
Naomi Anthar
#1165 - 2013-02-03 14:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Anthar
Captain Semper wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:

As for over-sizing, lets just increase PG requirements up to a level of appropriate cap-booster, for example XL-ASB would take 1750 MW.

Or reduce PG req for LAR\LAAR to 500. I want oversized armor rep on crus\BC Cool


You still don't get it ? You may think ASB is overpowered and broken atm. But this is false. ASB is in such state that i actually miss words to describe level of retardness this module provides.

Let's say they let you put oversized LAR/LAAR ... and so what ? The most undeserved and broken advantage of ASB is that it requires no cap to use. Be it small asb or XL asb. And your LAR will consume such amounts of cap on your cruiser, that you will have to shutdown it after first cycle. There is absolutely nothing that can be done atm to make AAR as good as ASB. ASB is win / win , no penalties , no drawbacks, no sacrifices, no cap usage, close to joke fitting requirements allowing you to oversize this module almost as much as you want.

You may think i whine. And you are 100% right. I do complain. Devs try to fix armor, but they need to deal with shields in first place.

Edit: Oh well i'm starting to be tired in my crusade, i could point out advantages of shields on all aspects not only "ancilary". Nah i give up for now. Time to put dem shield skills in training queue and just live with it.
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1166 - 2013-02-03 16:13:57 UTC
Quote:
because they wouldn't be able to fire the ASB even with charges loaded

This is exactly how the AAR works, and it is the entire point of taking away the neut immunity.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Captain Semper
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#1167 - 2013-02-03 16:15:27 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Captain Semper wrote:
Sinzor Aumer wrote:

As for over-sizing, lets just increase PG requirements up to a level of appropriate cap-booster, for example XL-ASB would take 1750 MW.

Or reduce PG req for LAR\LAAR to 500. I want oversized armor rep on crus\BC Cool


You still don't get it ? You may think ASB is overpowered and broken atm. But this is false. ASB is in such state that i actually miss words to describe level of retardness this module provides.

Let's say they let you put oversized LAR/LAAR ... and so what ? The most undeserved and broken advantage of ASB is that it requires no cap to use. Be it small asb or XL asb. And your LAR will consume such amounts of cap on your cruiser, that you will have to shutdown it after first cycle. There is absolutely nothing that can be done atm to make AAR as good as ASB. ASB is win / win , no penalties , no drawbacks, no sacrifices, no cap usage, close to joke fitting requirements allowing you to oversize this module almost as much as you want.

You may think i whine. And you are 100% right. I do complain. Devs try to fix armor, but they need to deal with shields in first place.

Edit: Oh well i'm starting to be tired in my crusade, i could point out advantages of shields on all aspects not only "ancilary". Nah i give up for now. Time to put dem shield skills in training queue and just live with it.

Ohoh. Easy man i just kidding.
But with ASB that use 0 capa for activation - its ok. So maybe AAR will need 0 capa too at least?
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#1168 - 2013-02-03 19:02:08 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Marcel Devereux wrote:
More math...

If you don't consider the proposed skill worthwhile then why not just refrain from buying and training it?

You are right, that it doesn't do much for straight line speed but mass is more than a speed hindrance. Close fights are often won/lost because of a few seconds of indecision or outright mistake of one of the pilots involved .. a few extra m/s and a slightly tighter turning radius may not look awesome on paper but it can mean the world in those close fights.

But it is all besides the point, plate buffering is being buffed which is just plain wrong even if active tanks are being made a lot more viable. Sacrifices for plating are quite simply not severe enough to make up for the benefits they bestow on their users (easy fittings (comparatively), capless etc.) .. just thank your lucky stars/rabbit's foot/whatever that I am not the one calling the shots Big smile


In the 1600mm Thorax case the align time goes from 6.4s to 6.1s with no MWD and from 8.7s to 8.4s with a MWD on. In the 800mm case the align time goes from 6s to 5.6s with no MWD and from 8.3s to 7.9s. Compared to the shield fits of 5.2s with no MWD and 7.5s with MWD (4.4s/6.3s with on NIS2) the proposed skill is a joke.

My point is that shield tanking has the advantage of tank+low slots+speed. Armor tanking has the advantage of tank+med slots. The low slots can be used to give more tank, more speed, more range, and more DPS. The med slots can be used for EWar. Shield ships will always be faster than armor ships because they can use low slots to make them faster. They can do this without sacrificing tank and they can usually can do it along side of DPS. If a armor ships wants more DPS it has so sacrifice tank. If it wants more speed it has to sacrifice tank.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1169 - 2013-02-03 19:14:04 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Quote:
because they wouldn't be able to fire the ASB even with charges loaded

This is exactly how the AAR works, and it is the entire point of taking away the neut immunity.


There is a difference. If you get low on cap with the AAR, the cap booster that you are expected to carry will let you keep going but the neuts will eat some cap from each cycle.

An ASB with cap usage on the other hand will shut down completely as soon as the capacitor is low, even if you have charges left.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#1170 - 2013-02-03 19:24:46 UTC
The problem is that even if we have AAR and ASB, normal active tanking doesn't provide you half the lifespan of buffer fits.
Simply put I still believe all armor reppers and shield boosters should give ~20% more hitpoints repaired pr minute than currently. Obviously balanced with a look into wether cap use should be changed with it...

I would at the same time look into pirate implants and nerf them to about 50% of what they give today. 50+ % armor buffer or shield boosting is tipping the game balance and I think Snakes, Slaves and Crystals would still be hugely attractive doing half what they do now. You know in todays game all armor supers/titans HAVE to use slaves and crystals are actually the only time active shield boosting gets viable in pvp when combined with faction gear...

Pinky
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1171 - 2013-02-04 00:57:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Pinky Denmark wrote:
The problem is that even if we have AAR and ASB, normal active tanking doesn't provide you half the lifespan of buffer fits.
Simply put I still believe all armor reppers and shield boosters should give ~20% more hitpoints repaired pr minute than currently. Obviously balanced with a look into wether cap use should be changed with it...

I would at the same time look into pirate implants and nerf them to about 50% of what they give today. 50+ % armor buffer or shield boosting is tipping the game balance and I think Snakes, Slaves and Crystals would still be hugely attractive doing half what they do now. You know in todays game all armor supers/titans HAVE to use slaves and crystals are actually the only time active shield boosting gets viable in pvp when combined with faction gear...

Pinky

Why would anyone bother with a ~13% snake set when a single implant in the 6th slot (currently taken by Omega) can provide 8%? Add CAs and a cheap-ass combination of 3 implants already outperforms a full pirate set. lol?

Also, Crystals don't work on capitals. If anything, they can give the same treatment to the rest of sets, if that is such of a big issue.

Seems you've missed the key failure of ASBs - they are such a bad game concept precisely cause they lack any high-end variations and everyone is forced to use the same expendable solution even when fitting a faction ship, which is sheer moronity.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#1172 - 2013-02-04 02:30:13 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Why would anyone bother with a ~13% snake set when a single implant in the 6th slot (currently taken by Omega) can provide 8%? Add CAs and a cheap-ass combination of 3 implants already outperforms a full pirate set. lol?

Also, Crystals don't work on capitals. If anything, they can give the same treatment to the rest of sets, if that is such of a big issue.

Seems you've missed the key failure of ASBs - they are such a bad game concept precisely cause they lack any high-end variations and everyone is forced to use the same expendable solution even when fitting a faction ship, which is sheer moronity.


It's a long time since I looked at snake numbers - but 13% for a LG set and 25% for HG set seems fine... Obvisouly you cannot balance something without having to do minor adjustments to other things. We had this discussion before but I still think it's a shame to require faction mods, implant sets and pills to be pvp competitive and only the most elitist can afford to pvp with those outside empire and lowsec. And elitist people should not be allowed to pay for 50% more armor or shield boost where most players can't. All other modules are built up about giving MINOR advantages for a big cost... Pirate implants aren't just giving you a minor advantage. Nothing should be balanced just because it cost a lot.

Also I never said crystals work at capitals - I know they don't...

And the Key failure for ASB is the balance. 1 minute reload is more than most fights take from the beginning. Thats because they balanced them so dual ASB setups wouldn't be too powerfull - however suddenly doing a single ASB setup as originally intended isn't competitive with buffer tanks and you might as well buffer tank. As a result the potential buff to active shield tanking from no longer being dependant on a cap booster is useless. I don't get why they didn't just made it a single module pr ship and adjusted the amount of cap boosters.

Besides I am sure when ASB's are deemed balanced more meta and faction variants...

ASB and AAR are still the most horrible attempta to fix active tanking though. They would be great alternative on top of a generic boost, however as single shot solutions the game play around active tanking is still in a sorry state.
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#1173 - 2013-02-04 11:20:15 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Armor Rigs

UPDATE: Overheating Rig is pulled while I re-evaluate the method used to apply the bonus.


•Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity. Note this is increasing the PG use of the reps by 10% (or 5% at Armor Rigging V) not decreasing the total PG of the ship.

Plates

•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.
•Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%

Armor Reps:New:

•Reduce the Powergrid requirements of all Medium Armor Repair units by 20%
•Reduce the Powergrid requirements of all Large Armor Repair units by 10%

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 Nanite Repair Paste, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
•When loaded with Nanite Repair Paste triples rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
•Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps
•Smalls use 1 paste per cycle, mediums 5, larges 10. Can hold 8 cycles worth of paste at a time.


good and logical changes, i cant believe that i would say "good" for work of team five0.. your "improved" crimewatch2, blah...

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1174 - 2013-02-04 12:36:46 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
In addition to my previous post, another "obvious" alternative is to disallow oversizing of ASBs.



Well I could almost agree with you if it wasn't for the simple fact, shield tanking alternative accumulates the biggest number of possible modules being able to be fitted despite being oversize modules, for whatever reason this makes those ships work quite decently so I tend to say let it be and don't nerf what does not need nerfs (welp the invuln passive thing it's another thread)

The other possible alternative is armor tanking with a very known robust fleet/gang concept/doctrines, those have very strong tanks, enough mobility and dps amount/application, but we're only talking here about armor buffer tank which is the only one able to work quite properly because pulse+scorch and ships with +armor resist per lvl (majority in fleet/gang)

Once you start tackling active armor rep, which seems to be Gallente racial trait more than having drones as 1rst weapon system some idiots like to think, and here we go with all those cumulative drawbacks, lack of anything interesting modules wise consistent with racial philosophy, ships stats hilariously opposed to either racial trait (active armor tanking but the ship has more hull than armor) either racial philosophy (shortest range weapon system on the second slowest fitted hull with an active tanking based on "sustainability" when it needs "burst")

Lazy choices are lazy, accumulation of those overtime lead to this precise point: unless gimmick/fake/lol module, new skills because lol again, there's no way for this active tanking to become anything else than it was already, just different and the core problem still not solved.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Vulfen
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1175 - 2013-02-04 14:02:28 UTC
@ CCP Fozzie

Would it be a good bonus for the AARs could have the ability that when loaded with nanite paste when you overheat them they use twice the paste for the rep but it does not suffer heat damage? After all nanite paste is used for repairs.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1176 - 2013-02-04 14:41:18 UTC
A lot of questions have been coming in concerning alternate modes for the AAR such as being able to toggle the more powerful rep. That's not something we can do for 1.1 and we'd have to take time to consider it more fully but I won't rule out the idea.

One change we have decided to make is slightly decreasing the Paste consumption of the medium and large AARs. We'll have the mediums eat 4 per cycle and the larges eat 8.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1177 - 2013-02-04 14:49:31 UTC
Will repair paste be cheaper to produce? Not looking forward to the pricing when all this hits the fan.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Mund Richard
#1178 - 2013-02-04 15:20:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Beaver Retriever wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the AAR description on Sisi says
Quote:
Prototype Inferno module.
The same as all the other new modules since Inferno then.

Also, Fozzie, any chance for meta and T2 Reactive Armor Hardeners in 1.1?

Would be interesting to see the T2

Based on it's stats, it could be a bigger buff to armor tanking than this whole AAR thing and the plate skill together.

Or is that why it won't happen.

"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
#1179 - 2013-02-04 15:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Moonaura wrote:
Will repair paste be cheaper to produce? Not looking forward to the pricing when all this hits the fan.

How can you (and others) still be worried about price?

BS numbers: Lets say paste triples in price after the AAR is released, the LAAR will consume 64 units before going dry with a total price of <4M (20k x 3 x 64) which is less than a single gun, equal to roughly 2000 units of faction ammo .. total value of the ship will probably be somewhere in the 250-300M bracket

Now consider that the AAR allows you to win fights that would otherwise be lost .. even with insurance, the loss of mods, spare ammo and hull far exceeds any deficit incurred by the cost of the paste. Hell, if it allows you to win just 10% (random %, probably far lower) more than usual you are already making loads of money on the investment.

In short: Think of the cost of paste as an opt-in to the insurance, ABS brakes to the airbag and seatbelt .. it may not prevent calamity but significantly reduces the risk and in the even of "fail" minimizes the economic damage.

Even shorter: As long as CCP (read: Fozzie) keeps an eye on market price and is prepared to order tweaks to PI formulas if the need arises it is literally a non-issue.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#1180 - 2013-02-04 15:33:55 UTC
Your argument sounds great when applied to Battleships.

Please consider that not every ship is a battleship lol.

A T1 Cruiser fit, will cost around 20-30m ISK. You're talking about an increase in costs of 10-20% total. Added up, thats quite a lot of ISK being spent.

Personally though I think this is all part of the plan for CCP to sell more Plex's. ;) So far they have done nothing to stop the inflation issues the game is having or bringing in mechanics to counter the unfairness of the cartel that just makes the rich richer.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xex9rz_gordon-gekko-greed-is-good-full-spe_shortfilms#.UQ_UlFrMfoo

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans