These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Odyssey 1.1] Local Armor and Shield repair module changes

First post
Author
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#441 - 2013-08-12 22:33:21 UTC
Trade boosting with local rep? As if they were related. Then you can just remove the boosting and scrap command ships.
Job Valador
Professional Amateurs
#442 - 2013-08-12 22:41:50 UTC
HeXxploiT wrote:
Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:
HeXxploiT wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps


Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we.

Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow.

Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it.
The balance IS IN the risk vs reward.

Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone.

Frustrating.



Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way.


I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..

Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.

CCP you want tears? You got'em.


I am awaiting the contract with all of your stuff

"The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement."

Galmas
13.
Enigma Project
#443 - 2013-08-13 00:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Galmas
...nvm...
Ines Tegator
Serious Business Inc. Ltd. LLC. etc.
#444 - 2013-08-13 05:25:42 UTC
While you're checking out modules, take a look at the faction medium armor reps. Some of them offer nothing more then easier fitting over t2, and some of them are actually worse (republic fleet i'm looking at you.) Give the underdogs better cap efficiency or lower fitting or something to make them worth existing.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#445 - 2013-08-13 05:40:04 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:
can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff?
i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.

buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep...


I'd say what you're looking at is CCP trying to encourage people switching to active tanking outside of big fleets because active tanks are weaker by nature. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: active tanks die to alpha and are weaker to neuts or high dps. Buffer tanking will always be preferable to active tanking for any situation where dps can be spared for logi.

I would expect nerfs to remote repairing to come before the year is over. It makes sense if they're trying to weaken blob tactics by reducing their buffer hp, their links and finishing the process by nerfing remote reps probably by making logi ships incapable of cap stability

it's not to make small gangs more attractive against large fleets. large fleets are here to stay simply because having more numbers always gives you an advantage.

When it comes to large numbers of people, you will always have certain people specializing in a certain field. thats how things work, it's more efficient.

these changes just make active tank more usable compared to buffer between small scale engagement gangs. has almost no effect on large scale fleets.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#446 - 2013-08-13 06:40:22 UTC
Cpt Boomstick wrote:
Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly.

dont forget the other aspects of shield boosters. A X-Large T2 booster only gets 600 hp for 400GJ while a T2 Large Armor Repairer get 800 hp and 400GJ.

Armor has 1.5 cap/hp ratio while shields have 2.0.

And if your going to compare an ASB to anything do it against the AAR:


The Large Ancillary Armor Repairer does 1350hp for 400GJ (assuming nanites loaded) and does it for 8 cycles (120 seconds)

The X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster does 980hp for 0GJ (again assuming cap charges loaded) and using cap booster 400 does it for 7 cycles (35 seconds)

AAR repairs 10800hp total (90hp/s)
ASB boosts 6860hp total (196hp/s)

So, the shield ship becomes vulnerable within 35 seconds. it's not a matter of 1 being more powerful than the other, it's all reliant on playstyle. armor is more passive and drawn out while shield is quick and fast. With an ASB fit shield ship your hope is to kill the enemy before you run out of cap boosters. With armor, you hope to outlast the enemy and use your utility mid slots to keep him where you need him until he has exhausted his options and is vulnerable.

AS for fittings, it's an opposing situation, Armor needs more PG while shield requires more CPU. Shield fits require more cpu than armor and vice a versa. Along with generally higher resists armor also has the option of the 1600mm plate where shields do not have a similar option.

It's all about playstyle.

But the main reason shields have a X-Large booster is because armor has a 1600mm plate, which gives almost 2x as much hp as Large shield extender.
Diana Kim
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#447 - 2013-08-13 19:36:46 UTC
Bad idea IMHO.
Some ships are already quite hard to kill, for example, it took me ~10 minutes to kill an incursus with rocket hookbill.
Imagine if it had links... and this 15% booster.
It will be way harder to fight for solo pilots, because you would need both dps and neuts to break such tanks.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.

Kallie Rae
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#448 - 2013-08-13 22:40:00 UTC
Are all these changes on SISI now? Am not 100% sure, but it looks like the Ancillary Armor Repairer is worse off than the T2 variant now with nanite paste loaded? At least according to the number in the fitting window.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#449 - 2013-08-13 23:03:09 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Bad idea IMHO.
Some ships are already quite hard to kill, for example, it took me ~10 minutes to kill an incursus with rocket hookbill.
Imagine if it had links... and this 15% booster.
It will be way harder to fight for solo pilots, because you would need both dps and neuts to break such tanks.


rockets have pitiful dps really.. but more importantly how come it took ten minutes to kill it and you never died and he never got away?

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2013-08-13 23:13:58 UTC
Wait... armor reppers are weaker than shield boosters so you are nerfing them?

CCP please.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#451 - 2013-08-13 23:31:06 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Cpt Boomstick wrote:
Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly.

dont forget the other aspects of shield boosters. A X-Large T2 booster only gets 600 hp for 400GJ while a T2 Large Armor Repairer get 800 hp and 400GJ.

Armor has 1.5 cap/hp ratio while shields have 2.0.

And if your going to compare an ASB to anything do it against the AAR:


The Large Ancillary Armor Repairer does 1350hp for 400GJ (assuming nanites loaded) and does it for 8 cycles (120 seconds)

The X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster does 980hp for 0GJ (again assuming cap charges loaded) and using cap booster 400 does it for 7 cycles (35 seconds)

AAR repairs 10800hp total (90hp/s)
ASB boosts 6860hp total (196hp/s)

So, the shield ship becomes vulnerable within 35 seconds. it's not a matter of 1 being more powerful than the other, it's all reliant on playstyle. armor is more passive and drawn out while shield is quick and fast. With an ASB fit shield ship your hope is to kill the enemy before you run out of cap boosters. With armor, you hope to outlast the enemy and use your utility mid slots to keep him where you need him until he has exhausted his options and is vulnerable.

AS for fittings, it's an opposing situation, Armor needs more PG while shield requires more CPU. Shield fits require more cpu than armor and vice a versa. Along with generally higher resists armor also has the option of the 1600mm plate where shields do not have a similar option.

It's all about playstyle.

But the main reason shields have a X-Large booster is because armor has a 1600mm plate, which gives almost 2x as much hp as Large shield extender.

The issue with the playstyle argument is that the low DPS tankable of the AAR means that one style is far more limited in it's upper bound, while the AAR can simply pulse reps in lower DPS scenarios and extend it's operational time before reload. This allows a shield ship to operate just fine in an armor ships range with a bit of attention but the armor ships can't do the same or reasonably upgrade to larger mods. I don't think there can be a reasonable argument, even from a situational standpoint, made to support the idea of the AAR and ASB being equal.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#452 - 2013-08-14 00:03:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The issue with the playstyle argument is that the low DPS tankable of the AAR means that one style is far more limited in it's upper bound, while the AAR can simply pulse reps in lower DPS scenarios and extend it's operational time before reload. This allows a shield ship to operate just fine in an armor ships range with a bit of attention but the armor ships can't do the same or reasonably upgrade to larger mods. I don't think there can be a reasonable argument, even from a situational standpoint, made to support the idea of the AAR and ASB being equal.

thats sort of the trade off i'm trying to show. ARmor and Shield fits seem to appose each other in function. For every benefit/hinderance Armor has Shield has an opposing one.

Few examples:

Armor

Advantages
Larger buffers (1600mm plates)
Higher base resists (10% racial)
No signature radius penalty
more capacitor efficient repairs
Low slots - extra utility mids
Modules use less CPU

Disadvantages
Mass addition - slower/less agility
No passive recharge
slower repair rate/end of cycle
Low slots - less dps mods
Modules use more PG

Shield

Advantages
Higher agility/speed
Faster active repair
passive recharge
Mid slots - more dps low slots
Modules use less PG

Disadvantages
Smaller buffers
Lower base resists
signature radius penaltys
High Shield boost cap demand
Mid slots - less utility mods
Modules use more CPU

Each one does certain things better than the other and certain things worse. Each has its own penalties and benefits, and for the most part neither of them has a penalty that the other cant match in another form.

And for the most part this is good. Or else we end up with a very homogenized defense systems.
Mournful Conciousness
TOHA Heavy Industries
Blades of Grass
#453 - 2013-08-14 02:10:56 UTC
Rowells wrote:

Shield

Advantages
Higher agility/speed
Faster active repair
passive recharge
Mid slots - more dps low slots
Modules use less PG



You forgot a few:
1. Ability to increase overall resists through overheating of one invulnerability field.
2. gist local shield reps have 200% the capacitor efficiency of the most efficient armour reps.
3. Crystal implants are available to increase shield booster power and efficiency. No such pirate implants exist for armour.
3. Ability to fit battleship sized modules on battlecruisers and cruisers.


+15% to local reps is an excellent change.
The fact that archons will uber tank is not important. You don't kill archons with DPS, you kill them with neutralisers.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".

seth Hendar
I love you miners
#454 - 2013-08-14 12:52:15 UTC  |  Edited by: seth Hendar
Freighdee Katt wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
  • These numbers should have been:

  • Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20%
  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10%

  • That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start.

    The AAR did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing TEs did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing resist bonuses did not fix armor tanking. The ASB made active armor suck even harder next to active shields. You have wasted months on all these gimmicks and silly, backhanded, irrelevant tweaks. But you still haven't actually done anything to make active armor tanking viable next to active shield tanking.

    It's time to stop playing games and get back to basics: Do the hard work of rebalancing the core, fundamental mechanics of armor and shield active tanking.

    this.

    i don't know what's in your mind at CCP, but since january, you are doing crap over crap to eve.

    are you trying to kill it (this is a serious question)?

    servers are more and more buggy, laggy etc... => you on't give a F

    new launcher => doesn't improve anything, made using more than one account a nightmare, and i don't even speak about the bugs

    odyssey: increase cost of all the things (ice + BS), delete exploration from the game, introduce **** tones of bugs

    and now, you are just doing silly stuff, avoiding to address the really issues, like with this thing.

    the whole active tanking need rethinking, not just this (failed) polish

    the whole drone need rethinking, not a (failed) polish

    the whole UI need rethinking, and some issues adressed, not a failed "we add MORE radial and ignore all the rest (sensor overlay crap anyone?)"
    the unified inventory is STILL NOT able to perform as efficiently as the old one!

    the ship re balance is not all good and need more look, like for the matars, wtf where you thinking with this missile boats? and the hurricane?

    and what about this wasted time breaking things that worked well, like the jump animation, or fixing stuff that no one cares about like hose industrial ships?

    the only GOOD thing that happened in those last 6 month: we can finally use drones in lowsec pvp (and i think it was really time to make this, thank you for doing it!)

    what we care about:

    sensor overlay not really turning off
    active tanking unbalance between shield & armor
    sound bugs (50% of the time there is no sound at all)
    launcher not working (like NEVER working => get rid of it)
    jump animation cannot be turned OFF
    server not registering some events
    gas cloud killing the FPS
    fleet boost not always working (not talking about ogb here, just regular fleet / wing /squad boost)
    environment hitbox are silly big (stations, roids etc.....)
    bring exploration back.

    i strongly suggest the next expansion focused on FIXING those things, then we will talk about actually improving / adding content to the game, but first, please fix the mess you did those last 6 month.

    thank you
    Karl Planck
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #455 - 2013-08-14 13:06:26 UTC
    +1 though i do worry about two ships.

    The hawk :
    Will have an INSANE tank with faction reps/crystals/blue pill

    The Incursus:
    Already borderline OP with the reps, even without boosts. Nuets are a somewhat effective counter but a 15% bonus on top will make this little brick nearly unkillable to its t1 counterparts (unbonused)

    I has all the eve inactivity

    Wooden Spoon
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #456 - 2013-08-14 13:16:45 UTC
    seth Hendar wrote:
    Whine Whine Whine Whine, Cry Cry Cry.


    Wow... just wow. I think if I had taken the time to write that... whatever it was, I would at least kept it on topic.

    Anyway, I fly solo, armour tanked ships in combat all the time and can honestly say that armour tanking is in the best position it's been in since I can remember. The latest buff is excellent and very welcome. You can now fit a viable kiting armour setup, passive brick, or active tank and not be at the kind of disadvantage you would have been 6-12 months prior.

    Shield/Armour should have different pro's and con's, otherwise there's no choice and choice is good.

    The only thing I am waiting for is a limit on the number of ASBs, same as AAR. I don't understand why shield can have two fittted and armour only one.
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Khimi Harar
    #457 - 2013-08-14 13:55:41 UTC
    Wooden Spoon wrote:
    Anyway, I fly solo, armour tanked ships in combat all the time and can honestly say that armour tanking is in the best position it's been in since I can remember. The latest buff is excellent and very welcome. You can now fit a viable kiting armour setup, passive brick, or active tank and not be at the kind of disadvantage you would have been 6-12 months prior.

    Shield/Armour should have different pro's and con's, otherwise there's no choice and choice is good.

    The only thing I am waiting for is a limit on the number of ASBs, same as AAR. I don't understand why shield can have two fittted and armour only one.

    That actual solo or do you lug around a link alt like 99% of the other solo'ers?

    Shield/Armour could have the exact same performance and the choice would still be massive .. midslot options differ wildly from lowslot ditto.

    Armour tanking a kiter is never more than afterthought, used to negate the need for docking constantly to repair scratches, and as such is a completely pointless metric to determine whether adding even more repping power to modules is a good/bad idea.
    The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships as they will be unkillable by a similar sized ship, the T2 hulls will have 1k+ tanks with ample mids to fuel it for Goddess sake and the Incursus already requires specific counter fits to defeat (five mid Hooks, multi neut etc.).

    But you are right, armour is in a much better place now, doesn't say much considering the bottomless pit it was residing in for so long though Smile

    Alystin Wyndyl
    Night's Shadows
    Dark Souls.
    #458 - 2013-08-14 14:37:14 UTC
    There's lots of pluses and minuses with this change. But I think Fozzie, you need to just go on SIsi and use the compare tool and see what to me is a glaring error on shield boosters.

    As you go up in Meta level, by the very nature, there should be a gain of some sort over a lower meta level. Some changes are subtle, but they are always there. But I think with the buffing of certain groups of shield boosters more than others, you've destroyed the balance.

    Look at T2 Large Shield Boosters vs Gread Gurista/Caldari Navy ones. Used to be, they repped the same, but the DG/CN ones had easier fitting. That was warranted. After all, CN/DG are 4 meta levels higher than a T2. Now, on Sisi, they still have the same fitting, same cap use, but they rep 26 less than the T2 per cycle. Where has the value gone? I could expect that possibly from a meta 7 or 8 module, but these are meta 9. They should be clearly better and they are not anymore.

    I think you may be looking at buffing the less powerful boosters to help balance against the more OP, and more powerful higher meta ones. But be careful you don't destroy the value of your meta system. I would suggest looking at individual cases, and doing a pass to make sure the progression of each size of booster in rep amount, cap use, fitting, and meta level make sense, and tweak individual modules, rather than doing sweeping across the board changes with different percentages.

    Akturous
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #459 - 2013-08-14 14:44:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Akturous
    Seriously, you changed it so deadspace boosters are getting twice the buff of DG and now DG are worse than t2? What the hell happened? As if deadspace boosters aren't already great.

    Vote Item Heck One for CSM8

    Omnathious Deninard
    Ministry of Silly Walks.
    #460 - 2013-08-14 15:28:53 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships.

    The additional 15% is to compensate for the loss of resistance bonus form warfare links, with links applied it puts them in the same (or extremely close) position as they were before.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.