These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#1281 - 2013-02-09 08:08:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Funky Lazers
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
What people don't see with the AAR is all the possibilities the module open. Basicaly, you have a 2 in 1 repair mod for the length of a fiight and active tank rig won't kill your speed anymore (this is insane : 15% more speed !) Oh, and some grid is freed too now.

That may look like small things, but that may have huge consequences. You need one less slot to active armor tank (damage ? TE ? more tank ? more speed ?), and you are as fast as any other ship. I can't imagine how to not see the difference that will make.


Sometimes I have to stand, do anything and/or tank damage for like 3-5 mins or even more because of Damper madness.

My repairer does more than 20 or 30 cycles for those 5 mins. So "for the length of a fight" sounds a bit joky.

I have around 3000-4000 PG free, "Oh, and some grid is freed too now." yeah, more free grid!

Also I never use rigs and other stuff that reduces my speed, so where is my 15% more speed?

"You need one less slot to active armor tank" - No. I still need the same number. Nothing changed.

Whatever.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#1282 - 2013-02-09 10:53:12 UTC
I think that a lot of problems could be solved by having a new class of armour module that combines buffer and resists at least it would justify why there is a power requirement in the first place for plates. Something that adds mass and as such affects agility like the present plates do but also gives extra hp and a flat +15% for resists across the board or even +20% for a much more power hungry version. Such a module would free up low slots and allow those slots to be used for damage, power or cap mods as per pilot choice and mitigate many of the problems with flying amarr. Given that amarr are supposed to be absolute masters of armour tanking I am surprised that such a module does not exist.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1283 - 2013-02-09 11:13:32 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
What people don't see with the AAR is all the possibilities the module open. Basicaly, you have a 2 in 1 repair mod for the length of a fiight and active tank rig won't kill your speed anymore (this is insane : 15% more speed !) Oh, and some grid is freed too now.


It's not 2in1, it's 1.68 of too little in one. Yes, the removal of speed penalty is very good and long overdue, but grid reduction mostly just counters the PG increase from the rigs, and you still can't fit largest guns with active armor tank.

Quote:
That may look like small things, but that may have huge consequences. You need one less slot to active armor tank (damage ? TE ? more tank ? more speed ?), and you are as fast as any other ship. I can't imagine how to not see the difference that will make.


This would be cool if it was the case, but try to think realistically. On frigates, SAAR can do what you say due standard SARs already being viable. However when you move to bigger ships, the amount of incoming damage is a lot higher, and the reppers are comparatively much weaker.

Currently using all your lows and rigs plus two mids for active armor tank is the minimum, and it falls short in all but 1vs1 situations. AAR does not mean that you drop one module, it just means that you will get an improved tank with the same setup for 9 cycles. After that, you have less tank.

AARs look on triple rep setups, and makes them very interesting on Myrms and Hypes. Having two normal reppers might give you enough reps to live through reload, and you can possibly just run the two normal reps and give an overheated cycle from the AAR when needed.

However single MAAR or LAAR just doesn't have enough reps, they are nothing like an oversized ASB.

.
Mund Richard
#1284 - 2013-02-09 11:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Roime wrote:

Currently using all your lows and rigs plus two mids for active armor tank is the minimum, and it falls short in all but 1vs1 situations. AAR does not mean that you drop one module, it just means that you will get an improved tank with the same setup for 9 cycles. After that, you have less tank.
8
Roime wrote:
However single MAAR or LAAR just doesn't have enough reps, they are nothing like an oversized ASB.
Neither the reps, nor the lack of need for a Cap Booster.

The oversized ASB fixed it's fitting cost by not needing a cap booster (grid free of one demanding module), and the cap issue at the same time (again by not needing it).

AAR introduces no such thing.
You still need multiple repair modules even on a bonused hull.
You still need to allocate a lot of lowslots to tank. And because of that, you can't aim that well to finish a fight before you are forced into reload.

These changes were timed for the BC rebalance to help BOTH Gallente BCs that are active tankers.
At least I think it was, had that impression from the first pages of BC rebalance with all the hinting.
The issue is, the change isn't that strongly felt, due to how the other repper(s) still being the plain old ones, and the fitting not changing at all, cap booster(s) in the mids, active tank rigs, ect... All the explicitly good changes (that I welcome greatly btw, haven't stressed that enough), you don't need the AAR to take advantage of. Roll

If the AAR had a fitting forgiving enough to oversize, THAT would create all the interesting options, and free up lows.Twisted (like someone claimed it does). That would leave to more damage/TE being fit, thus letting you try to aim for a shorter engagement, before your charges expire.
Would also explain the 1 per ship restriction. Roll
That I could live with. Of course, it would need an XL version then for battleships. Roll

If the AAR had no cap cost while loaded... well *NOW* CCP knows how bad such an idea is, and will never make that mistake... AGAIN Roll, but keep the shield module that is a mistake, because... well, no idea.

Giving the AAR an 50% reduction in cap cost while loaded... considered it as an idea, but since you have to fit a cap booster for the other module, and that should more-or-less satisfy your needs, it would have no effect.

So what other gimmick can we give the AAR while loaded?
Reducing mass, increasing speed, cycle time or boost amount of all repairers if it's mid-cycle itself (kinda like an active SBA), can't really think of anything that seems like a good idea.


I'll possibly fly the new AAR or... an incursus of mine.
I'll possibly fly an active tanked Brutix after all these changes CCP announced... without the AAR.

Roime wrote:
AARs look on triple rep setups, and makes them very interesting on Myrms and Hypes. Having two normal reppers might give you enough reps to live through reload, and you can possibly just run the two normal reps and give an overheated cycle from the AAR when needed.

Problem I see here, is that you don't quite get that much in return.
The rep over time will stay the same, cap efficiency is better for this one module but the other two stay the same so cap boosters all the way still, and the burst is somewhat negated by not having the full rep power while in reload.
Sure, if you feel him overheat all the guns, and still have all the charges, then it's ok. If you are baited into repping too early, then c'est la vie.

"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.
Luc Chastot
#1285 - 2013-02-09 11:40:35 UTC
I'm baffled at the lack of any response from CCP Fozzie, feels like these changes were set in stone from the beginning and no amount of feedback will change that.

Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.

Mund Richard
#1286 - 2013-02-09 11:51:49 UTC
Dang, I edit my posts a thousand times...
Luc Chastot wrote:
I'm baffled at the lack of any response from CCP Fozzie, feels like these changes were set in stone from the beginning and no amount of feedback will change that.

At least with the BCs one thing I wanted to see after the initial posting (of the many-many more) has been implemented:
Brutix has a non-hardpoint high, giving the option of a link even with full rack of guns.
Just don't ask about the fitting.Blink

"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.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1287 - 2013-02-09 12:00:05 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Dang, I edit my posts a thousand times...
Luc Chastot wrote:
I'm baffled at the lack of any response from CCP Fozzie, feels like these changes were set in stone from the beginning and no amount of feedback will change that.

At least with the BCs one thing I wanted to see after the initial posting (of the many-many more) has been implemented:
Brutix has a non-hardpoint high, giving the option of a link even with full rack of guns.
Just don't ask about the fitting.Blink

I have played around with some fits for the brutix, full rack of neutron blasters and a T2 link, here comes the but, it is shield tanked there is almost no cost effective way to do that armor tanked.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1288 - 2013-02-09 12:10:33 UTC
Some numbers about the armor amount an AAR will rep in 8 cycles :
SAAR : 60 * 2,25 * 8 = 1080 hp
MAAR : 240 * 2,25 * 8 = 4320 hp
LAAR : 600 * 2,25 * 8 = 10800 hp

400mm reinforced steel plate II : 1200 hp
800mm reinforced rolled tungsten plate I : 2100 hp
800mm reinforced steel plate II : 2400 hp
1600mm reinforced rolled tungsten plate I : 4200 hp
1600mm reinforced steel plate II : 4800 hp

Coucou armor plates, AAR will just take your place ; thx bye.

Not convinced yet ? MAAR is 3 times easier to fit than a 1600mm plate, and with one or two rigs, it will provide as many hp as this 1600mm plate, but without killing your mobility.

Someone said a shield ship would never armor tank ? I doubt it, or I think at least the possibility arise. With so many mid slot, a shield ship could be like a hookbill, with many EWAR, speed, and still some tank.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1289 - 2013-02-09 12:27:50 UTC
You do understand that you only get that total hp if you get to run all the cycles?

Unless the incoming damage is less than your reps/second, you eat your non-existing buffer on every cycle.



.
Mund Richard
#1290 - 2013-02-09 12:28:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
SAAR : 60 * 2,25 * 8 = 1080 hp @320GJ. Incursus total: 463/361 with meta MWD
MAAR : 240 * 2,25 * 8 = 4320 hp @ 1280GJ. Thorax total: 1813/1468 with MWD
LAAR : 600 * 2,25 * 8 = 10800 hp @ 3200GJ. Mega total: 7031/5695 with MWD

Suddenly the Incursus is out of cap with just one pulse of it's MWD and guns.
Thorax? Can use all modules at least twice! Woohoo!
Mega can take it like a boss, and almost has half it's cap left, enough for 4 cycles of a MWD or so.

"3 times easier to fit"
You forgot to add the Cap booster's fitting cost and extra slot to make it runRoll
This ain't no ASB to give you free HP at oversized extender values.

My numbers may be off.
My point is dead-on.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
MAAR is 3 times easier to fit than a 1600mm plate, and with one or two rigs, it will provide as many hp as this 1600mm plate, but without killing your mobility.

Kills the cap instead.

"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.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1291 - 2013-02-09 12:55:38 UTC
Cap magicaly regen itself. It's an awesome feature.

BTW, as someone already said it, by the time you go through all of your cycles, the fight will be close to the end, except for BC.

And finaly, your are discovering the magic of balance : something may be useful without completely obsolete something else ! For exemple, AAR maybe useful without obsoleting plates !

WOW ! We will now have CHOICE !

Maybe you should consider what this module will allow to do instead of what it will not allow to do. It's called positivism.

This module will NOT obsolete plates or shield.
This module will NOT give your armor ship all advantages of a shield one.
This module will NOT make any ship a solopwnBBQmachine.

Please, stop seeing armor as a bad shield. It's *different*. Start thinking another way, a way where armor strength can be used. You will never see any use for armor as long as you want largest guns + twin TE/MFS. This is shield.

And finaly, I'm not saying it will now be wonderland in a perfect virtual world, though the last few pages were only moaning without any argumented concern IMO.
Mund Richard
#1292 - 2013-02-09 12:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Wait.
A post ago you say byebye plates, AAR takes your place, now you say this gives choices instead of obsoleting stuff?

But you are right on the cap regen, you get a lot more cycles out of guns+MWD+AAR before it goes dead fish.
46 second for a Thorax fit I happened to have in EFT, 5 of the 8 cycles if the MWD is also running.

"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
#1293 - 2013-02-09 13:36:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
This module will NOT give your armor ship all advantages of a shield one.
This module will NOT make any ship a solopwnBBQmachine.

I don't want another "ASB", that upsets the game completely.
But I would like a new module that opens up new possibilities.

What I saw the ASB do such was allow shield tanking with modest amounts of midslots.
Being free of cap cost made it a lot easier to accomodate, freeing up a midslot that was the cap boosters, and many shield ships really needed that. The extra oversized tank was also it's own SBA for the price of one midslot (needing fitting rigs perhaps, specially on double-oversized).

I don't really want the AAR to be capless, armor BCs and above can afford the 4th med slot for it, and for frigs like even I said before, the SAAR seems ok due to the limited time the engagements last.
Although someone pointed out how SAR is also quite fair to begin with at that level, thus not much improvement was needed to make something viable.

Instead of constant moaning, I should put forth some great idea to make it happen, you are right that the moaning is meh.
What I would like to see, is the possibility to fit differently.
I'm not the smartest person around though, and the best I could come up with was reducing the AAR's fitting to allow oversizing for a BC for instance (not really for frigs though).
Since a Myrm often has all of it's 6 lows dedicated to tank, it could use it just as much as shield users could the ASB.
Overall cap consumption would be still high to outright requre cap boosting, fitting would prolly be brutal (but not really more so than tripple T2 MAR), but it would allow the lows to fit something other than tank (just like shield users fitting prop and tackle, even if not web or ewar).
Not exactly the two+two TE+Gyro of a shield cane, but it would make a considerably different fitting, instead of one of the MARs in the low getting an extra A.

It may be a silly idea, but that's the best I had for now, someone come and do better!

"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.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#1294 - 2013-02-09 15:34:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Funky Lazers
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

And finaly, I'm not saying it will now be wonderland in a perfect virtual world, though the last few pages were only moaning without any argumented concern IMO.


There are 2 facts that 2x LAR are worse than X-Large SB+SBA in:
- sustained tank
- burst tank
Plus shield tanks have more resists because of Invuls.

This is enough for me to consider Armor tanking the worst thing here.
Since I need less mods to tank I can fit TEs/TCs easily.

Why shouldn't I moan about this obvious disbalance?

Whatever.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1295 - 2013-02-09 15:45:53 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Cap magicaly regen itself. It's an awesome feature.

BTW, as someone already said it, by the time you go through all of your cycles, the fight will be close to the end, except for BC.

And finaly, your are discovering the magic of balance : something may be useful without completely obsolete something else ! For exemple, AAR maybe useful without obsoleting plates !

WOW ! We will now have CHOICE !

Maybe you should consider what this module will allow to do instead of what it will not allow to do. It's called positivism.

This module will NOT obsolete plates or shield.
This module will NOT give your armor ship all advantages of a shield one.
This module will NOT make any ship a solopwnBBQmachine.

Please, stop seeing armor as a bad shield. It's *different*. Start thinking another way, a way where armor strength can be used. You will never see any use for armor as long as you want largest guns + twin TE/MFS. This is shield.

And finaly, I'm not saying it will now be wonderland in a perfect virtual world, though the last few pages were only moaning without any argumented concern IMO.


No, you are the one presenting only unargumented opinions "look armor is different".

Only thing you got right is that you can't fit biggest guns, damage mods or TEs on armor ships. For this tradeoff in damage, one would expect to get better tank.

But you get worse tank that uses cap, and this is why people complain. One more time in very simple form:

Active armor:

- low tank
- low dps
- uses cap

Active shield:

- high tank
- high dps
- does not use cap

And please understand that this is true on armor rep bonused ships. Without the 7.5% level bonus it's even worse.

.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1296 - 2013-02-09 15:49:48 UTC
And oversized ASBs are still the root of this problem. Fix their fitting requirements.

.
Naomi Anthar
#1297 - 2013-02-09 15:58:31 UTC
Roime wrote:
And oversized ASBs are still the root of this problem. Fix their fitting requirements.


You must keep in mind that DEVs are aware of that. They are not dumb they know that it's possible and abused. They just let it go and act like its fine.

But hey they reduced PG need for reps... oh wait you still cannot use oversized LAAR ... oh wait even if you could you wouldn't because cycle time/ cap usage would just kill you faster than your enemy.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1298 - 2013-02-09 16:07:55 UTC
They don't seem to realize that oversizing is the only problem. Fixing the fitting requirements was presented to them in discussions during the first ASB balancing and they thought instead that the best way is to try to break the whole ASB module functionality.

Possibly then they would realize that ALL active tanking mods need moar oomph in the current meta. Oversized ASBs are so popular for a very simple reason- they work. If frigs used SASBs, cruisers MASBs, BCs LASBs and XLASBs would be fitted only on battleships, people would realize that they are just as **** as armor mods and maybe something was done about them all.


.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#1299 - 2013-02-09 16:12:29 UTC
So mr. Bear what are the chances you will make the new skill that reduces mass for plates (armor upgrades) also affect the effectivness of Energized Armor Layering Membrane II

so the skill bonus would be 5% reduction of mass for plates and 3% increased effectiveness of armor layering membranes.

so a tech II Membrane with skills at v will increase the armor amount by 30%...

if you did this then the membrane would become a usefull mod and not just a lolz mod for some SC.
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1300 - 2013-02-09 16:16:19 UTC
Oversizing is fine as long as it represents a conscious and preferably hard choice .. cramming a 400 plate onto frigs for instance costs a lot in terms of fittings/performance .. that is the problem with ASB's and shield mods in general, too damn lax fittings with inconsequential downsides, extenders should blow the sig way out for instance and not by the measly handful of points presently.

Forcing arbitrary restrictions is un-Eveian so should never be considered, the problem would have been non-existent had there been some kind of cap consumption involved as is planned or the AAR. Sure you could fit the M.ASB on your frig no problem, but you'd cap out after two cycles! Smile.