These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1201 - 2013-02-05 19:02:59 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
Can we hope on T2 and other meta versions of AAR and RAH?
I reaaly hope so. New modules needs more versions.

T2 RAH has been brought up a few times already in this thread, so far no response.

Even though it would be possibly a huge buff for armor, and one folk would see use for.

Then again, in essence, it would become an invuln field for armor, and that would be bad because...
it would be good? Roll
Specially with Invuln loosing it's passive resist.
Although Faction/Deadspace invuln resists remain crazy still while you have the cap, which you don't need for the repper anyways. 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.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1202 - 2013-02-05 19:22:56 UTC
Creating T2 versions of any number of the Inferno/Retri prototype modules is definitely an option, I don't think CCP Soniclover has made any hard decisions about when and what the next steps will be with them quite yet.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#1203 - 2013-02-05 20:15:09 UTC
It will definately make it easier to balance - test the most powerfull option and then introduce full scale with the less powerfull but easier to fit options later... Will CCP Soniclover be debating the ASBs again in a near future? They are really hard to use unless you use 2 - Then suddenly your only real drawback is one less medslot and some fitting...
Thorne Zyman
Golden Goose Research
#1204 - 2013-02-05 20:19:26 UTC
Thorne Zyman wrote:
Here's my version of armour tanking 2.0.

Buffer Tanking:

For all plates:

1 Increase the PG required by a factor of 2 - 2.5 (eg, 1600 now takes 1250 pg)
2 Add 5 to the CPU required.
3 Increase the mass by a factor of 1.5.
4 Increase the HP gained by a factor of 2 (eg, 800mm plate will provide the benefit of the old 1600mm).

This will provide a sharp line between low mass, low hp and high mass high hp plates at each ship level (except Battleship level where the mass difference between 800 & 1600 is lower).

50mm plates will still be more or less unused, but 100mm/200m will do the same job the 200mm/400mm do at frigate level but with a sharper mobility difference. 400mm/800mm will provide a genuine choice at Cruiser level. 1600mm becomes a Battleship only module (though fitable on some niche bait cruiser / battlecruiser fits), with 800mm also being viable for a more mobile Battleship.

Active Tanking:

I personally don't think there's much wrong with active tanking, except the modules take too much pg to fit. SAR are fine, MAR could be taken down a touch in pg(15%?), and LAR down a bit more(20%?).

Rep amount is ok, maybe increase MAR and LAR a touch (10%?).

For short term burst tank, significantly increase the heat bonuses to something like +100% rep amount, with no change to duration.

In addition to this, look into the deadspace options for shield and armour tanking and bring them closer together (but still leave shield boosting more) by nerfing deadspace shield boosters down and bumping deadspace armour reps up. In addition, look into the resists provided by high end deadspace modules.

Reduce the cap use of the RAH to make it usable on cruisers. Introduce a T2 version with higher resists.

Rigs:

Change shield rig penalty to -10% armour and armour rig to -10% shield. This makes the penalty pretty much a non-issue, but it has a nice symmetry to it. Add a stacking penalty to CDFE & Trimarks.

Change astro rigs to -10% structure, to make them usable with an armour tank if desired.

just going to leave this here again, was missed from about 20 pages ago...
Mund Richard
#1205 - 2013-02-05 20:47:44 UTC
Thorne Zyman wrote:
Thorne Zyman wrote:
Here's my version of armour tanking 2.0.
*snip*

just going to leave this here again, was missed from about 20 pages ago...

Well yes, but it started a bit "crazy".

Many people complain about either the mass or the EHP added by 1600s being too high.
And then you suggest both get buffed. Roll

I do see the sense in it: accept that armor is bad at mobility, and make it be good at being a brick.
However, it totally nullifies any chance shield users have for a brawl, or armor to make dictating range at least a bit harder.
Think of the hybrid-damage/resist caldari line.
So I disagree.

Bringing plates/extenders and active modules closer together would be interesting,
except that the original idea is (I think) that one trades longevity (from being able to repair) for being able to equip larger guns.
That (T2) logis changed the landscape completely, and people rather fit multiple buffers most of the time, is "a separate issue". As are dual-oversized-ASBs.

Active tank heat bonus change:
Well,it would burn out slower (which is good), but boost less often.
Only place I see that as a problem is with oversized modules, where a cycle reps all your buffer (I exaggerate), so faster cycles are the way to go, less damage seeping through.

Rebalancing Faction/Deadspace armor AND shield modules:
YES, please!

Meta/T2 RAH, and cost rebalance:
Yes!

Armor/Shield rig penalty to be the other one:
Balance-minded that makes sense.
Flavor loss I can sometimes live with. And active armor is already being changed, so why not go a step further?
Shield "drawback" does not exist at the moment as soon as the MWD is turned on. And apart from the Cane and other lowslot-heavy ships, shield ones tend to have less "excess" armor (having LOTS of EHP in shield instead), than Gallente do hull for instance.

Stacking penalty to CDFE/Trimark:
I imagine what that would achieve, is that people would use two, and the third would plug a resist hole. Or something. And no real change on T2. Possibly not worth the bother.
Makes sense though, but by that logic you could also start calling for stacking on plates/extenders.

Astro rig -10% structure:
On one hand, anything making armor more viable is good in my book.
On the other hand, structure...
Immediately I think of poor Taranis. 571 armor and 879 hull at all V, tanking is done by slapping on a DC in many cases. Would hurt there a lot, and who needs mobility more, than frigates?

"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.
Thorne Zyman
Golden Goose Research
#1206 - 2013-02-05 21:12:34 UTC
Thanks for the reply.

The buffer changes will make everything lighter. I'm suggesting giving 800 plates roughly the same fitting and buffer as the current 1600, but a bit lighter, and the 400 plate roughly the buffer of the current 800 plate, but much much lighter and easier to fit. Not at a pc atm, but can post the exact values later.

The basic idea was to make a sharp difference between solid buffer / heavy weight / hard to fit and light buffer / light weight / easy to fit.
Mund Richard
#1207 - 2013-02-05 21:19:34 UTC
Well, with multiple plate fits, it would rather translate into a "free" lowslot, for a bit of a fitting difficulty increase.
I think many would be happy to have that difficulty. Lol
Still disagreeing, sorry.

"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.
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#1208 - 2013-02-06 03:58:09 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Creating T2 versions of any number of the Inferno/Retri prototype modules is definitely an option, I don't think CCP Soniclover has made any hard decisions about when and what the next steps will be with them quite yet.

Well, thanks for reply. But you have mentioned T2 meta 5 level only Blink... Is your answer valid for other meta levels?
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1209 - 2013-02-06 07:51:24 UTC
It still looks like triple rep is required to get any mileage out of active armor tank on BC/BC level. This means five slots just for the repairers, then you use all other lows and rig slots to buff them on a competitive level.

Managing 5 modules and the heat generated my them, losing all damage and having even more isk in your full cargohold just to run a tank that compares to 4-slot XLASB tank but with a web feels like a rather harsh tradeoff.

.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1210 - 2013-02-06 08:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: raawe
Not to mention cap issue...
Yavax Zavro
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1211 - 2013-02-06 09:06:37 UTC
What's the point in reducing plates mass? I don't get it. 1600mm is so popular because of it's HP bonus, changing smaller plates mass won't make them popular (I guess it's the main reason of doing so). People still will be trying to fit 1600mm in their ships anyway Big smile.
raawe
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#1212 - 2013-02-06 11:38:34 UTC
Yavax Zavro wrote:
What's the point in reducing plates mass? I don't get it. Big smile.


need for speed! No really plate mass needs to be reduced a little bit at least or given some extra resistances.
Yavax Zavro
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1213 - 2013-02-06 14:05:23 UTC
raawe wrote:
Yavax Zavro wrote:
What's the point in reducing plates mass? I don't get it. Big smile.


need for speed! No really plate mass needs to be reduced a little bit at least or given some extra resistances.
Penalty for speed is so small that I don't think there's a point of changing it. Maybe in smaller plates there is, but in 800mm? Nope.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#1214 - 2013-02-06 14:31:45 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Creating T2 versions of any number of the Inferno/Retri prototype modules is definitely an option, I don't think CCP Soniclover has made any hard decisions about when and what the next steps will be with them quite yet.


So, I'm curious.

Presumably when you release these modules you intend them to be balanced and competitive with other options, which is for most people going to be tech 2 stuff. Ancillary shield boosters, for example, are meant to be competitive with t2 shield extenders. How could you release tech 2 versions of these mods without breaking this balance?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1215 - 2013-02-06 14:51:36 UTC
Kahega Amielden wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Creating T2 versions of any number of the Inferno/Retri prototype modules is definitely an option, I don't think CCP Soniclover has made any hard decisions about when and what the next steps will be with them quite yet.


So, I'm curious.

Presumably when you release these modules you intend them to be balanced and competitive with other options, which is for most people going to be tech 2 stuff. Ancillary shield boosters, for example, are meant to be competitive with t2 shield extenders. How could you release tech 2 versions of these mods without breaking this balance?


Easy, introduce T2 versions with the same stats as the current T1 versions, then nerf the current T1 versions. The net result is to increase the cost of fitting your ship.

Of course, that's a total waste of time. Big smile
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1216 - 2013-02-06 15:04:11 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Kahega Amielden wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Creating T2 versions of any number of the Inferno/Retri prototype modules is definitely an option, I don't think CCP Soniclover has made any hard decisions about when and what the next steps will be with them quite yet.


So, I'm curious.

Presumably when you release these modules you intend them to be balanced and competitive with other options, which is for most people going to be tech 2 stuff. Ancillary shield boosters, for example, are meant to be competitive with t2 shield extenders. How could you release tech 2 versions of these mods without breaking this balance?


Easy, introduce T2 versions with the same stats as the current T1 versions, then nerf the current T1 versions. The net result is to increase the cost of fitting your ship.

Of course, that's a total waste of time. Big smile



T2 Ancillary rep/shield booster will probably just hold 1 or two more cycles of charges with same boosting stats and higher fitting reqs



You heard it here first.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1217 - 2013-02-06 15:24:46 UTC
Any word on fixing the Armor Resistance Phasing skill error? Level V currently causes increased cap usage.

.
Perihelion Olenard
#1218 - 2013-02-06 16:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#1219 - 2013-02-06 16:45:31 UTC
Roime wrote:
Any word on fixing the Armor Resistance Phasing skill error? Level V currently causes increased cap usage.


I don't think that is an error. Armor repair modules also consume more cap with better skills
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1220 - 2013-02-06 16:52:31 UTC
It's very different, since you only get the benefit for the first cycles, but suffer from the drawback all the time when it's on.

.