These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#321 - 2013-01-22 11:52:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Another question is rig calibration cost. When tech1 trimarks are of 50 poins and active rigs are of 100, it's already quite a disparity - why would anyone think trimak is any worse than nanobot accelerator? Then consider fitting tech2 versions and it suddenly becomes a real PITA to fully utilize those. And saying that 'you have 400 points, so 150 per rig is not that much' is sheer stupidity, given there are certain rigs that easily take 200-300 calibration points each and certain ships and setups might want to use them. Finally, faction ships have only 350 calibration and thus are really gimped when it comes to rig setup department.

Will this be left intact, too?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Debir Achen
Makiriemi Holdings
#322 - 2013-01-22 11:57:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Debir Achen
Eternal Error wrote:
Hint: In addition to being incorrect on tracking (given that sig radius only matters if your sig radius is less than the sig res of the guns),
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage

Missile damage is capped at a % = sig res / explosion velocity. Do you have a reliable reference stating something similar for guns?

Eternal Error wrote:
armor rigs penalize speed, not mass.
True. But plates penalise mass. And everything else I stated is still true.

Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature?
Akturous
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#323 - 2013-01-22 11:57:21 UTC
Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote:
Roime wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

Because its going to be better? do you realise how much 2.25 more is? Without gimping your fittings?


2.25*crap != good?

MAAR: 742.5 hp / 9s * 9 = 6682 hp
XLASB: 980 hp / 5s * 9 = 8820 hp

Please note that this is indeed on an armor rep-bonused ship.

AAR reps come at the end of much longer cycle, which makes it considerably harder to use economically compared to ASB. Maybe this is a way to balance the fact that they also rep less and can be completely neuted out, idk.

Both fit without gimping "your fittings", with the difference that you can fit two XLASBs if you are willing to "gimp the ship"- which in this case means you will have more tank and dps than an armor fit.

vOv
Did you just compare a MEDIUM module to an X-Large module and decide that the medium was **** because it wasn't as good as the X-Large module?

HURRRRRRRRRRR!

And given the the new slot layout of the Myrm, do you know how much tackle you'll have with a dual ASB fit? Have fun trying to apply that damage.


Yes he did you mong, because you can fit an xl ancil to a cruiser/bc, you can't in any way shape or form fit a LAR to a cruiser. LTEFT noob.

Vote Item Heck One for CSM8
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#324 - 2013-01-22 12:04:31 UTC
Roime wrote:
Realize that you are actually saying that it takes twice as long for AAR to rep 24% less damage.



So turn it on earlier? thats nothing that can't be negated with proper module management.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Adam Junior
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#325 - 2013-01-22 12:12:46 UTC
Huh.

Nice nerf.

It's not like I needed that PG.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#326 - 2013-01-22 12:23:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
CCP Fozzie wrote:
fukier wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
IamBeastx wrote:
So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?

I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?

This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed?


It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.

There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.

You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.



how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare?

its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR!

presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships!


And also super overpowered.



Nice, so by that fail ass logic, resistance bonus must be "Super overpowered" as well right? Or do you guys not actually do any kind of math over there at ccp.

For those that do not know (apparently you fozzie) a 7.5% rep bonus gives you just over a 3% advantage in active tank compared to a ship with a resistance bonus... This same "just over 3%" advantage would be present if the rep bonus effected incoming RR. Now compared to the ehp advantage a resistance bonus gives, this extremely modest increase in 2 out of the 3 areas probably still does not make up for the ehp advantage provided by the resistance bonus... Based on your statement "and also super overpowered" I'm going to assume that you are not exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch, are you?

As for all these bad ideas in the OP... How about you fix stuff that is broken first, instead of trying to add bandaid skill and module fixes to an already overly crowded game... I've got a little secret on how you can do this... It's called fixing the damn base modules as people have been throwing out mathematically driven threadnaughts about this subject for 5+ years.

Actually, just go get tomb, I think you've shown you can't handle the tanking rebalance.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#327 - 2013-01-22 12:24:56 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Roime wrote:
Realize that you are actually saying that it takes twice as long for AAR to rep 24% less damage.



So turn it on earlier? thats nothing that can't be negated with proper module management.


Ok, I admit that I'm a complete nub at preemptive armor repairing. Should I turn the module on right after I undock? Or only when I land on grid? How many cycles before the battle do you think would be required to catch up with ASB?

/troll

Anyway, I think most of these stupid ASB comparisons and tank creep would have been avoided simply by sanitizing the ASB fitting requirements using armor rep+cap booster as the measure.

This new armor mod combined with the o/h rig is quite powerful compared with ASBs of the same size, and when rigs don't anymore slow you down, you get great value from the hard tackle you can fit with armor tank- or opt for a bit more damage. Very nice.

.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#328 - 2013-01-22 12:28:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Oversized modules need to go. They make it impossible to get the balance right.

1600mm plates can be fitted on battleships, battlecruisers and cruisers. We know that their existence causes various problems on the cruiser level but changing the 1600mm plates would also affect battleships and battlecruisers. Same story with oversized shield boosters, shield extenders. We need to get to the root of the problem.


Consider the following idea where existing plates, shield extenders and active tanking modules are replaced by:

"Frigate Armor Plating"
"Reinforced Frigate Armor Plating"

"Frigate Shield Extender"
"Reinforced Frigate Shield Extender"

"Frigate Armor Repairer"
"Frigate Shield Booster"

"Frigate Ancillary Armor Repairer"
"Frigate Ancillary Shield Booster"


These can only be mounted on frigates which allows you to balance them against each other and against their shield/armor counterparts without affecting other ship classes.

Add this series for all ship classes (including destroyers and battlecruisers) and suddenly many balance problems disappear.
Dzajic
#329 - 2013-01-22 12:32:45 UTC
And trololo oversized shield extenders? All frigs use medium extenders, all cruisers use large extenders. Would you also love to have frigs limited to small shield extenders? Cruisers only to fit MSE?
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#330 - 2013-01-22 12:32:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Apostrof Ahashion
The new rigs are going to destroy pve armor fits. I know that part of the game is not important but still....... thats 115PG nerf to every armor rep mission running battleship with armor rigging lvl 5. And some fits use two reps....... and almost no one uses just one rig. So it will probably be much higher number that 115 im just to lazy to do math.

And please use nano paste instead of cap boosters for Ancillary Armor Repairer.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2013-01-22 12:35:44 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Oversized modules need to go. They make it impossible to get the balance right.



I disagree because oversizing in shields is actually necessary for balance due to the value of mid slots.

The only thing needed for nerfing oversizing should be to the drawbacks they provide.

An oversized extender should blow your sig much more than a standard size.

This already happens with mass/speed with oversized plates.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2013-01-22 12:37:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:

And please use nano paste instead of cap boosters for Ancillary Armor Repairer.


I would have thought that combining cap booster charges with nano paste for "armour repairer fuel blocks" would have been a much better idea

Also gives extra industry to make them.

Same should be done with ASB's but using cap booster charges and something else like a PI product to make "Shield Booster Fuel Blocks"
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#333 - 2013-01-22 12:42:05 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
The new rigs are going to destroy pve armor fits. I know that part of the game is not important but still....... thats 115PG nerf to every armor rep mission running battleship with armor rigging lvl 5. And some fits use two reps.......

And please use nano paste instead of cap boosters for Ancillary Armor Repairer.

Hey, some of us fly atrocious, execution-worthy fits that involve mixing repper rigs and resist rigs, and as such will not see our fittings invalidated.

...Yes, I'm guilty.Ugh

It's a good point about the PG nerf, though, and I doubt that a tiny percentage improvement to speed will make up for being stuck in my laughably bad fit being forced into smaller, weaker guns by the PG losses.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#334 - 2013-01-22 12:45:58 UTC
Gentleman, you have my attention.

The mass reduction in smaller plates will make them more viable for speed, combined with the skill bonus for both the larger armor plates and the smaller ones this will be quite interesting.

I like the fact that you aren't homogenizing the Ancillary armor repper with the shield repper. This maintains the distinction between both tanking types and gives them their own flare. Longer reps with more power behind them, like it! Watching that stack with armor rep bonuses on ships like the ferox will most definitely be interesting.

Thanks for the good work!
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#335 - 2013-01-22 12:46:20 UTC
OK, seeing as this update is all about 'parity' to a degree, the AAR being introduced because the shield tankers got the ASB, when can i expect to see an XL-shield extender to 'counter' the fact that the 1600mm plate exists

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#336 - 2013-01-22 12:47:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Oversized modules need to go. They make it impossible to get the balance right.



I disagree because oversizing in shields is actually necessary for balance due to the value of mid slots.


You don't understand my proposal. The poster before you didn't either.

My proposal isn't about "how much hitpoints should extenders/plates add?" but about "let's make a system where it is possible to tweak the numbers on extenders/plates in one ship class without upsetting balance in another ship class".

Once this system is in place we can discuss the exact stats on extenders/plates/ASBs/etc on a per ship-class basis.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#337 - 2013-01-22 12:51:23 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
OK, seeing as this update is all about 'parity' to a degree, the AAR being introduced because the shield tankers got the ASB, when can i expect to see an XL-shield extender to 'counter' the fact that the 1600mm plate exists


It will come along with the ability to fit dual XLAARs on battlecruisers, just be patient!

.
Hastemal Nisk
Perkone
Caldari State
#338 - 2013-01-22 13:00:31 UTC
I still think much of the active armor tanking issue comes from being able to squeeze 2 xlarge boosters/booster and amplifier into a battlecruiser or even some cruiser hulls _and_ do a very good weapons fit, while there's no way that a sub battleship hull can in any way fit a large repper, while multiple medium reps push out needed damage mods.
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#339 - 2013-01-22 13:00:32 UTC
Ok.

Adjustments to armour plates. Good.

Adjustments to rigs. I need to look into this further.

Active Tanking:
Active armour tanking cycles slower with larger boosts per cycle for better efficiency and lower HP/s
Active shield tanking cycles faster with smaller boosts per cycle for lower efficiency and higher HP/s

The main issue I have with active tanking are the numbers when talking about efficiency.
Armour repairers are supposed to be more efficient than Shield Boosters. However, if we look into active tanking on the whole it looks like this:

Active armour tanking tends to be "Dual Rep Fit". This is fairly normal and in order for an active shield tank to compete it is allowed (due to fitting) to oversize the shield booster and fit a "Shield Boost Amp" to fill the gap.

T2 Armour Rep modules provide 2 HP/ Cap unit per module.
Dual reps provide approx 70 HP/s @ 2 HP/ Cap unit

T2 Shield Boost modules provide 1.5 HP/ Cap unit per module
Single oversized Shield boost + amp provide approx 81.5 HP/s @ 2.3 HP/ Cap unit.

I believe Armour reps need to have their efficiency looked into. I think they should be more like 3 HP/ Cap unit.

Also, efficiency of all active tanking modules need to be rebalanced as ASB's and AAR's are very much changing the shape of active tanking. It is clear that ASB's and AAR's are designed for "Burst Tanking" due to requiring to be fueled and having long reload timers.
For traditional active tanking modules to compete with these modules they need to be more efficient than they currently are and have them refocused into "Endurance Tanking" modules (shield and armour).

Also, your response to people asking for you to look at repair amount bonus to also effect incoming remote reps really disappointed me. You basically gave your opinion without backing that up with any numbers where everyone else has provided solid numbers which suggest that the bonus would not be "Totally OP". Is the entire community missing something that you know? Please elaborate on your statement to this question.

Thanks.
Dzajic
#340 - 2013-01-22 13:02:50 UTC
I would take this chance to be boring and repetitive and remind everyone that proposed changed do very little if we don't look only at new gimmick module.

Standard armor reps remain exactly the same, rig bonuses remain exactly the same, one kind of crippling penalty is changed to another crippling penalty (should I be slow as snail or should I downgrade all my guns or swap tank rigs for grid rigs?). Only changes that even touch active armor tank are change of penalties and new overheat rig (That is in current version worse than nanobot accelerator), everything else about active armor tank remains the same subpar old self.