These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1041 - 2013-01-30 01:10:38 UTC
Mariticide wrote:
..What we gain in cargohold we lose in the ISK equation...

We can win that ISK equation if we can convince the powers that be to either make the AAR impervious to heat damage when burning nanites (makes sense) or tweak the PI processes to cut costs somewhat .. personally partial to the former option as it does not make heating something one does no matter what as in-space repairs will be cheap as hell.

At any rate. Armour tanking has always been 'hard mode', we elite few are perfectly happy with the prospect of paying for the privilege of getting to pwn face.
Seleucus Ontuas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1042 - 2013-01-30 01:22:44 UTC
fukier wrote:
dont see this mentioned but on sisi the skill armor resistance phasing now reduces RAT by 10% for cycle and 5% to cap usuage per level


That's how it is on Tranquility. They changed it a while ago.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#1043 - 2013-01-30 01:24:23 UTC
Seleucus Ontuas wrote:
fukier wrote:
dont see this mentioned but on sisi the skill armor resistance phasing now reduces RAT by 10% for cycle and 5% to cap usuage per level


That's how it is on Tranquility. They changed it a while ago.


oh opps... so why are people complain that the mod takes up too much cap then?

just got the skill so ...
At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Mariticide
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1044 - 2013-01-30 01:31:34 UTC
fukier wrote:
Seleucus Ontuas wrote:
fukier wrote:
dont see this mentioned but on sisi the skill armor resistance phasing now reduces RAT by 10% for cycle and 5% to cap usuage per level


That's how it is on Tranquility. They changed it a while ago.


oh opps... so why are people complain that the mod takes up too much cap then?

just got the skill so ...


50% faster cycle @ 25% less cap means more cap use the higher you train the skill at the advantage of it adapting faster.
fukier
Gallente Federation
#1045 - 2013-01-30 01:45:57 UTC
Mariticide wrote:
fukier wrote:
Seleucus Ontuas wrote:
fukier wrote:
dont see this mentioned but on sisi the skill armor resistance phasing now reduces RAT by 10% for cycle and 5% to cap usuage per level


That's how it is on Tranquility. They changed it a while ago.


oh opps... so why are people complain that the mod takes up too much cap then?

just got the skill so ...


50% faster cycle @ 25% less cap means more cap use the higher you train the skill at the advantage of it adapting faster.


that seems fair since the mod does not stack right?


At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1046 - 2013-01-30 02:12:44 UTC
fukier wrote:


that seems fair since the mod does not stack right?




It has a stacking pen with damage controls.
Naomi Anthar
#1047 - 2013-01-30 02:41:47 UTC
Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ?

Joke , huge disapointment. This ancilary thing ... i mean it's fine, but it's only for pvp and it doesn't fix any problem actually. Shield tanked ships often , i would say VERY often use capless weapon systems (projectile, missiles). So CCP logic is : give them capless shield booster(WTF). Now let's say amarrian ship super cap hungry with lasers gets ancilary armore repairer that still needs cap to cycle. Balance all the way.

There is straight and simple need to reduce MAR cycle time and/or increase amount repaired. If that is not going to happen then actually almost nothing will be done for pve activer armor tanking.

I would be big fan of small experiment : let's change so ancilary shield booster consumes cap/booster for more boosting and ancilary armor repaired does not take cap but paste. But hell no you use lasers, then you must also use cap for propulsion, neuting, ewar, reparing, hardeners to make things cool.

But i know why such things are going on. Amarrian ships got too many mid slots. I mean often 2 or 3. SOOOOOOOOOO many after propulsion and super obligatory cap booster there is so much possibilites. NOT.
Sigras
Conglomo
#1048 - 2013-01-30 04:30:30 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:

  • AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.

  • AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.

Im not seeing the "Armor Honeycombing" skill on the market anywere . . . i see it in the market browser but not any orders anywhere . . .

anyone else?
Sigras
Conglomo
#1049 - 2013-01-30 04:32:31 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ?

Joke , huge disapointment. This ancilary thing ... i mean it's fine, but it's only for pvp and it doesn't fix any problem actually. Shield tanked ships often , i would say VERY often use capless weapon systems (projectile, missiles). So CCP logic is : give them capless shield booster(WTF). Now let's say amarrian ship super cap hungry with lasers gets ancilary armore repairer that still needs cap to cycle. Balance all the way.

There is straight and simple need to reduce MAR cycle time and/or increase amount repaired. If that is not going to happen then actually almost nothing will be done for pve activer armor tanking.

I would be big fan of small experiment : let's change so ancilary shield booster consumes cap/booster for more boosting and ancilary armor repaired does not take cap but paste. But hell no you use lasers, then you must also use cap for propulsion, neuting, ewar, reparing, hardeners to make things cool.

But i know why such things are going on. Amarrian ships got too many mid slots. I mean often 2 or 3. SOOOOOOOOOO many after propulsion and super obligatory cap booster there is so much possibilites. NOT.

LOL

PvE in this game is already LOLZ easy mode, if you're having problems PvEing in this game before or after the changes, youre doing it wrong.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1050 - 2013-01-30 04:58:23 UTC
The passive shield tankers have always been better overall in my opinion, I see nothing is going to change. Cry
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#1051 - 2013-01-30 06:27:37 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ?

I'm going to try new HAM Legion as soon as I skill for it. Change of rigs penalty is very appreciated. Also, I plan to have 1 rep loaded of nanites on my WH battleship, for emergency situations. Sleepers can hit hard, you know. Furthermore, in wormhole, PVE can easily escalate to PVP. So in general, I'm happy to meet those changes both for PVP and PVE.

That being said, I still hate the whole ancillary idea for armor tanking. Make all reps charge-able with nano-paste and we're perfectly fine.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#1052 - 2013-01-30 09:01:44 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:
Gotta say those changes are serious disapointment for PVE. So now MAR and LAR take 20% and 10% less pwg and rigs now take pwg instead of speed. Oh cmon is that ALL ?

Joke , huge disapointment. This ancilary thing ... i mean it's fine, but it's only for pvp and it doesn't fix any problem actually. Shield tanked ships often , i would say VERY often use capless weapon systems (projectile, missiles). So CCP logic is : give them capless shield booster(WTF). Now let's say amarrian ship super cap hungry with lasers gets ancilary armore repairer that still needs cap to cycle. Balance all the way.

There is straight and simple need to reduce MAR cycle time and/or increase amount repaired. If that is not going to happen then actually almost nothing will be done for pve activer armor tanking.

I would be big fan of small experiment : let's change so ancilary shield booster consumes cap/booster for more boosting and ancilary armor repaired does not take cap but paste. But hell no you use lasers, then you must also use cap for propulsion, neuting, ewar, reparing, hardeners to make things cool.

But i know why such things are going on. Amarrian ships got too many mid slots. I mean often 2 or 3. SOOOOOOOOOO many after propulsion and super obligatory cap booster there is so much possibilites. NOT.


Fit two co proc in the lows instead of reppers and two xlasb in the mids instead of cap boosters on your abbadon, then add two hardeners in the mids and fill lows with heatsinks/tracking enhancers. Better tank, much better damage and better efficiency in cap batteries use. ASB everywhere, as intended.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#1053 - 2013-01-30 12:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Rented
Oh, nevermind. =/
JamesCLK
#1054 - 2013-01-30 13:30:10 UTC
Active tanks in DUST 514 have the repairs spread across 5 pulses in the duration of the cycle.

I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for Armour tanking in EVE...
Instead of getting the repairs at the end of the cycle, distribute them into pulses across the cycle.

-- -.-- / -.-. .-.. --- -. . / .. ... / - --- --- / . -..- .--. . -. ... .. ...- . / - --- / ..- -. -.. --- -.-. -.- / ... - --- .--. / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / ... . -. -.. / .... . .-.. .--. / ... - --- .--.
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Einheit X-6
Ushra'Khan
#1055 - 2013-01-30 13:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nagarythe Tinurandir
edit:
stupid me...
nevermind
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1056 - 2013-01-30 13:55:09 UTC
JamesCLK wrote:
Active tanks in DUST 514 have the repairs spread across 5 pulses in the duration of the cycle.

I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for Armour tanking in EVE...
Instead of getting the repairs at the end of the cycle, distribute them into pulses across the cycle.

That will destroy all the fun of active tanking. It's fun precisely cause it doesn't regenerate like a fugly drake, but pumps HP in large chunks instead.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#1057 - 2013-01-30 16:42:13 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
JamesCLK wrote:
Active tanks in DUST 514 have the repairs spread across 5 pulses in the duration of the cycle.

I'm wondering if this would be appropriate for Armour tanking in EVE...
Instead of getting the repairs at the end of the cycle, distribute them into pulses across the cycle.

That will destroy all the fun of active tanking. It's fun precisely cause it doesn't regenerate like a fugly drake, but pumps HP in large chunks instead.

Actually, I think he may be onto something.

Even if there were only 2 pulses, it would be more in line with the 'constant' of armour tanking over the 'burst' of shield tanking. Keep the AAR to one burst, but all other armour reppers could give 50% of their gain half way through a cycle and the other 50% at the end.

This effect is already emulated by staggering reppers, why not make it part of single reppers functionality.

Friends
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1058 - 2013-01-30 17:29:51 UTC
mental maverick wrote:
So I did some testing with the Ancillary Armor Repairer on the test server tonight and my first impression is that it is pretty awesome.

Previously i've mainly flown dual rep setups whenever I have gone for an armor tank, pretty much tried craming 2 reppers on every hull imaginable, but for the AARs I figured the plate/rep setup would be the best so thats what i've tested tonight. Used no implants or links and I have no EFT numbers or anything, this was just flying around pvping and getting the feel of it.

I tested mainly with a BS buffer/repper setup since I figured that kind of hybrid tank would be the one benefitting most from the AAR. Without implants or links I still felt it performed better then I expected, and this was on a Tempest and a Mega which neither have any kind of armor bonus. With just 1 cap booster, thus freeing up a mid slot, I still felt I had plenty of cap to spare for repositioning, semi kiting, smartbombing drones, neuting while at the same time running my repper, a luxury I usually dont have when running dual reps.

One thing I noticed a lot of times though is when I get 1 target tackled and I know he has friends incoming, I want to run my repper so he doesn't whittle away my buffer before his friends arrive but if I do that I use my "Nanite boost" before I really need it. So it's either having a low buffer when the gang lands but still have my "Nanite boost" available or have a topped up buffer but only maybe half of my Nanites left.

Would it make the AARs totally overpowered if we had the ability to turn the "Nanite boost" on and off in order to save it for when it's needed?


PS. sry about the "nanite boost" thingy, didn't know wtf to call it What?

I was actually thinking something along the lines of this. Perhaps if charges were only used if overheated or something in order to use minor boosts up until you need the large burst. That is, of course, assuming that there is no way to code a toggle so that it either consumes charges or not.
DJWiggles
Eve Radio Corporation
#1059 - 2013-01-30 18:00:13 UTC  |  Edited by: DJWiggles
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:

  • AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.

  • AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.


As far as I can see the ARR's are not taking ship bonus's in to account I.E armour ships that get a bonus to reps

Example:

Large armour rep gives 600 per cycle. On a Kronos with its 7.5 per level bonus with marauders to 5 it gives 825 per cycle.
Large AAR gives 450 per cycle as it should be. On a Kronos it only gives 1350 per cycle with paste but does not get the 7.5 per level which would be 1856.25 per cycle

Live on Eve Radio Sundays 15:00 GMT with me & friends talking about Eve and stuff. Twitter, Facebook TotalEve
Perihelion Olenard
#1060 - 2013-01-30 18:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
DJWiggles wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:

  • AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.

  • AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.


As far as I can see the ARR's are not taking ship bonus's in to account I.E armour ships that get a bonus to reps

Example:

Large armour rep gives 600 per cycle. On a Kronos with its 7.5 per level bonus with marauders to 5 it gives 825 per cycle.
Large AAR gives 450 per cycle as it should be. On a Kronos it only gives 1350 per cycle with paste but does not get the 7.5 per leve

I have also confirmed this on my myrmidon on the test server. With paste it should normally boost 702 armor without any rigs or ship bonuses helping it. After a boost on my myrmidon, it still boosts only 702 HP. I took the difference in armor HP from before and after the boost.

Also, after putting the paste into the AAR, it does not update the repair amount in the show info window when fitted.