These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Armor tank modules
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#1 - 2012-06-24 13:58:42 UTC
For now we have situation in the game when Shield tank (ST) is better in general than Armor tank (AT)
Inferno gave us new modules in both tanks. I've allready seen few succesful fits with cap booster charges fueled ST modules, meanttime new AT modules are not so good.
I can remember one advantage of AT before ST - free medium slots for stasis webs, scramblers and so on.
But AT needs Low slots, the same slots weapons uprages demands. It is especially bad, because two races, who uses AT have worst weapons with limited types of damages and high weaponry cap usage. For now CCP declared that all ships will be rebalanced, but i hope that they will fix AT.
So i have few sugestions. I don't want the nerf of ST, only AT optimisation. Let it be a rule - ST ships more faster and manerable, meantime AT ships have stronger defence entirely. No other changes.

1. Increase bonuses of armor compensation skills.
2. Inferno module Reactive armor hadener. Good idea. Let this module will be ordinary meta 0 T1 module, meantime CCP will bring to the game full stack of meta levels - meta1-4, meta5 akaT2, meta8, 9 faction modules, dead space and oficer modules. It will be great for PvE runners
3. We have today imo very strange group of modules - Resistance platings. Before Inferno there was useless passive resistance mods. Sorry, i have not seen even single fit with this modules. Their single positive aspect - very low fit demands. All players used Energised platings as passive mods, or Reactive plating as active mods.
For now new type was added - Layered plating. The same passive mod with very low fit demands, adding armor HPs. 5% bonus T1 module, 8,5% T2 module. For sure it is more usefull, than old resistance platings, but i can not name it a really effective mods. Armor plates with their penalties and higher fit demands will be more effective imo.
So i suggest to join modules in this group.
Let it be modules, adding % of armor HP and resistances both. Full line of meta levels included
4. Armor plates. Looks good for now, but according to their penalties it would be great to make them a bit stronger. Also, as i can remeber, there are no dead space and officer armor plates, it must be improoved.
5. Armor repairer system. For now it's acts like shield one, but more slower. But shield hae regenerate ability, meantime armor have not. So i suggest to make possible cap booster charges (CBC) used by reairer system. Without cbc it's act like right now, but if you will charge it with CBC armor repairer will act more faster or will have more repair amount.
6. New active armor resistance module. Uses CBCs. Two options possible
a. stronger CBC - more resistances at fixed time
d. stronger CBC - longer time with fixed amount of resistances

And it would soooo great, if CCP will fix reactive hardeners, who gave no additional EHP when activated

PS Sorry for my English
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#2 - 2012-06-24 14:13:01 UTC
No.

Armour and Shield tanking are different and more or less balanced. What you are asking for would make armor tanks ridiculously over the top. No.
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#3 - 2012-06-24 14:19:07 UTC
Paikis wrote:
No.

Armour and Shield tanking are different and more or less balanced. What you are asking for would make armor tanks ridiculously over the top. No.


no, they are far from balanced.

problem is the fleet compositions, which have bubblers and tacklers, and this more or less eliminates armor tanking ships with some spare mids (gallente) from current doctrines. gallente ships just don't fit to fly in a blob. don't say that's balanced, because 3 other races have their doctrines.
Postitute
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-06-24 16:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Postitute
nahjustwarpin wrote:


no, they are far from balanced.

problem is the fleet compositions, which have bubblers and tacklers, and this more or less eliminates armor tanking ships with some spare mids (gallente) from current doctrines. gallente ships just don't fit to fly in a blob. don't say that's balanced, because 3 other races have their doctrines.


2 questions for you:
1) There are some other very potent uses for mid slots beyond straight-up tackling, can you tell me what some of those might be?
2) "because 3 other races have their doctrines" - What fleet doctrines do the squids have besides "fly a Drake"?
Eternal Error
Doomheim
#5 - 2012-06-24 16:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternal Error
What you posted is bad. The main problem with armor tanking is the penalty you take to speed. The rig penalties need to be reduced by a fair amount. Plates in general need to be looked at because it gets kind of stupid with cruisers fitting 1600mm plates IMO.

Active tanking for pvp sucks relatively equally for both shield and armor, so I consider it a separate (but significant) issue.
nahjustwarpin
SUPER DUPER SPACE TRUCKS
#6 - 2012-06-24 17:33:36 UTC
Postitute wrote:
nahjustwarpin wrote:


no, they are far from balanced.

problem is the fleet compositions, which have bubblers and tacklers, and this more or less eliminates armor tanking ships with some spare mids (gallente) from current doctrines. gallente ships just don't fit to fly in a blob. don't say that's balanced, because 3 other races have their doctrines.


2 questions for you:
1) There are some other very potent uses for mid slots beyond straight-up tackling, can you tell me what some of those might be?
2) "because 3 other races have their doctrines" - What fleet doctrines do the squids have besides "fly a Drake"?


1. target painter? ecm? it's already in drakeswarm.

2. whelp fleet(hurricane), drake swarm, alpha fleet (maelstrom with scorpion ecm support), ab zealot, abaddon, alphanado, sniping nagas, sometimes alpha muninns. only ship that gallente has to offer for fleets is lachesis.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#7 - 2012-06-24 22:02:10 UTC
Gall have Ishtarcats.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#8 - 2012-06-25 02:00:15 UTC
When BCU's are changed to be middle slots then AT and Shield tanking will be balanced.

brb
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#9 - 2012-06-25 02:11:57 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
When BCU's are changed to be middle slots then AT and Shield tanking will be balanced.


When plates balloon your Sig, shield and armor tanks will be balanced.

They're different styles and sets of benefits/drawbacks.

(Also, armor tanking ships tend to do more damage before damage mods. A Hellcat does around 900dps with just 2 dps mods.)

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-06-25 02:58:07 UTC  |  Edited by: IIshira
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
When BCU's are changed to be middle slots then AT and Shield tanking will be balanced.


Do you also suggest low slot webs and scrams??

Why do so many people think everything must be exactly the same for it to be "balanced"? Use your brain and capitalize on the strong points of your ship!

I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to make all ships of each class exactly the same except looks. You would be in a different ship with different weapons but doing the same thing.

As much as I hate to admit it the 'ship" is just something on a computer program. If the computer was programed that the Drake and Hurricane did the exact same things except look different then they would.

The same could be done for modules and weapons.

It would be perfectly "balanced" but would it be any fun???

We could have the Drake and Hurricane with the exact same HP, slots, DPS and all but would that be any fun
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#11 - 2012-06-25 04:19:08 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
For now we have situation in the game when Shield tank (ST) is better in general than Armor tank (AT)
Right now, we have a situation which is pretty much exactly the same one as when armour tanks were “better” than shield tanks (and they were “better” back then in the same way that shields are “better” now). All that has changed is the doctrines, and it will swing back towards armour again before long.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#12 - 2012-06-25 04:20:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
PavlikX wrote:
For now we have situation in the game when Shield tank (ST) is better in general than Armor tank (AT)
Right now, we have a situation which is pretty much exactly the same one as when armour tanks were “better” than shield tanks (and they were “better” back then in the same way that shields are “better” now). All that has changed is the doctrines, and it will swing back towards armour again before long.


Wait, are shield-caps back?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#13 - 2012-06-25 04:45:39 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tippia wrote:
PavlikX wrote:
For now we have situation in the game when Shield tank (ST) is better in general than Armor tank (AT)
Right now, we have a situation which is pretty much exactly the same one as when armour tanks were “better” than shield tanks (and they were “better” back then in the same way that shields are “better” now). All that has changed is the doctrines, and it will swing back towards armour again before long.


Wait, are shield-caps back?


caps are different :because of slaves:
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#14 - 2012-06-25 05:06:15 UTC
Paikis wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Tippia wrote:
PavlikX wrote:
For now we have situation in the game when Shield tank (ST) is better in general than Armor tank (AT)
Right now, we have a situation which is pretty much exactly the same one as when armour tanks were “better” than shield tanks (and they were “better” back then in the same way that shields are “better” now). All that has changed is the doctrines, and it will swing back towards armour again before long.


Wait, are shield-caps back?


caps are different :because of slaves:


Really, my god. Tell me more. Could it also have something to do with the qualities of Capital missiles?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Rel'k Bloodlor
Federation Front Line Report
Federation Front Line
#15 - 2012-06-25 05:18:54 UTC
It's mostly fine the only real problem is that one is best at the smallest end of the scale and one better at the largest end.
Aside from that most people just don't know how to use each or enuff about them to know what to use when thats all. Stack on that doctrens that need all ships to fly the same tank and whala in some catigorys its just more likly you will see/use one type.

I wanted to paint my space ship red, but I couldn't find enough goats. 
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#16 - 2012-06-25 19:16:54 UTC
Have no idea what doctrines you talking about guys :)
But according to the statistics ST tanked ships are more often croses the gates then AT ships.
I have experience mission "Evolution" on Palladin and i saw like my friend deals with it using Machariel. Shields restores much faster, and Macahariel had no risk at all, mean time i've rewarped using the Paladin, because his armor can not withstand for a long time against fire of over 20 rogue drones different ships. We both fitted in high meta levels.
I am talking about small tuning, not revolution.
Hardly all my points will bring huge advance to the AT, especially that list is not solid, i am clearly understands that everything there can not be implemented. It would great if CCP will do something (even non included in my list) AT is much worse then ST for PvE at least.
More bonus points to armor compensation skills. Is this so strange? Armor is more "hard" thing.
More meta levels to the allready existing modules? What's wrong with this?
Improovement of compleetly useless group of modules, again, what's wrong with it?
and so on.

And i want to ask those, who oposes AT baff, what ships you operate? Harly it will be AT ships
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#17 - 2012-06-25 19:22:47 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
PavlikX wrote:
Have no idea what doctrines you talking about guys :)
But according to the statistics ST tanked ships are more often croses the gates then AT ships.
I have experience mission "Evolution" on Palladin and i saw like my friend deals with it using Machariel. Shields restores much faster, and Macahariel had no risk at all, mean time i've rewarped using the Paladin, because his armor can not withstand for a long time against fire of over 20 rogue drones different ships. We both fitted in high meta levels.
I am talking about small tuning, not revolution.
Hardly all my points will bring huge advance to the AT, especially that list is not solid, i am clearly understands that everything there can not be implemented. It would great if CCP will do something (even non included in my list) AT is much worse then ST for PvE at least.
More bonus points to armor compensation skills. Is this so strange? Armor is more "hard" thing.
More meta levels to the allready existing modules? What's wrong with this?
Improovement of compleetly useless group of modules, again, what's wrong with it?
and so on.

And i want to ask those, who oposes AT baff, what ships you operate? Harly it will be AT ships


You're having trouble with L4s in a Marauder? That's bad and you should feel bad.

EDIT: Oh, and you balance ships around PvP, not PvE. Armor is just fine.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#18 - 2012-06-25 19:35:50 UTC  |  Edited by: PavlikX
Quote:
You're having trouble with L4s in a Marauder? That's bad and you should feel bad.

Well, that mission is one of the deadliest if you will shoot down trigger in second pocket.
Also 6th pocket of Angel Extravaganza in case if i want standart (for all other missions at least) number of heat sinks - 4. Angels are not best NPCs to Amarr players and amount of damage done by my ship is more important in comparison with anti Sansha missions for example. So, i removeone heat sink to replace it with additional energised plating

Both tanks must have clear roles, positive and negative aspects. There must not be universal options (we have this situation for now). CCP must chek one more this matter and rework entire system of penalties and bonuses and modules.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#19 - 2012-06-25 19:47:48 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
Quote:
You're having trouble with L4s in a Marauder? That's bad and you should feel bad.

Well, that mission is one of the deadliest if you will shoot down trigger in second pocket.
Also 6th pocket of Angel Extravaganza in case if i want standart (for all other missions at least) number of heat sinks - 4. Angels are not best NPCs to Amarr players and amount of damage done by my ship is more important in comparison with anti Sansha missions for example. So, i removeone heat sink to replace it with additional energised plating

Both tanks must have clear roles, positive and negative aspects. There must not be universal options (we have this situation for now). CCP must chek one more this matter and rework entire system of penalties and bonuses and modules.


Active Shield tanking is great for PvE, but, uh, nobody cares about balance between ships with PVE. You pick the right hammer for the job (shield Mach, or Shield NM) and call it good.

With PvP, both Shield and Armor tanks have significant benefits and drawbacks. They're just fine.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#20 - 2012-06-25 20:00:38 UTC
PavlikX wrote:
Have no idea what doctrines you talking about guys :)


I'm afraid that blows your credibility talking about ship balance right there. Sad but true. You have to know the metagame in order to talk about balance.

PavlikX wrote:
But according to the statistics ST tanked ships are more often croses the gates then AT ships.


Which means what exactly? There are a ton of Drakes and Tengus fit for PvE. They use gates. That means nothing with regard to ship balance.

PavlikX wrote:
Hardly all my points will bring huge advance to the AT, especially that list is not solid, i am clearly understands that everything there can not be implemented. It would great if CCP will do something (even non included in my list) AT is much worse then ST for PvE at least.


Armor probably is a bit out of favor in PvE; that much is true. But we don't balance around PvE, we balance around PvP and then make PvE work however it works. And Paladins are pretty much fine here.

PavlikX wrote:
More bonus points to armor compensation skills. Is this so strange? Armor is more "hard" thing.


Since when? And why would we want to further encourage people to train armor comps when it's shield comps that are widely regarded as a relative waste of time?

PavlikX wrote:
And i want to ask those, who oposes AT baff, what ships you operate? Harly it will be AT ships


I fly both with pretty much equal skill (core skills 5 except TSM, comps 4). And I just finished off Shield Compensation itself. So I guess technically I had better armor tanking skills for years.
123Next pageLast page