These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HazeInADaze
Safari Hunt Club
#1321 - 2013-02-11 18:55:29 UTC
I think the AAR would be more interesting as an OH function. The repper acts as normal until overheated. Then it consumes nanite for a massive increase in rep amounts. The limiting factor would be burning out the mod and the reload would be taken care of in repairing the module. More than 1 AAR could be fit as burnout would occur sooner and you couldn't chain OH cycles because heat lingers and damages other mods. Then bonus would be one could choose when to start using the OH boost instead of always using it at the start. Pilots could also pulse it for short bursts and suffer less downtime on the module repair.

It think such a design would compensate for the fact that this is still a cap intensive mod requiring a booster; vs the ASB. And it would allow for a lot of pilot decision and control to maximise the full potential.
Mund Richard
#1322 - 2013-02-11 20:55:22 UTC
derAxlhalt wrote:
Fozzie i hope some one has implemented the current SISI build wrong, cuz all inactive (passive hardening 1% boni) on all hardeners (Armor and Shield) are gone.
Plz make clear, if this is intended?

Yes.
There was a thread on it.

"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.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#1323 - 2013-02-11 21:30:34 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
derAxlhalt wrote:
Fozzie i hope some one has implemented the current SISI build wrong, cuz all inactive (passive hardening 1% boni) on all hardeners (Armor and Shield) are gone.
Plz make clear, if this is intended?

Yes.
There was a thread on it.


Over here.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#1324 - 2013-02-11 22:17:06 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
YuuKnow wrote:
Because NRP is so much smaller in volume than cap charges won't Armor reps have the advantage of being able to carry *significantly* more NRP than the analogous ASBs fits?

yk

Longer cycles, cap requirement, harsher fittings and most will need injector - remember those from before ASB's made active shield tanks laugh at cap?

Personally think the requirement of first cap charges, now paste, is purely so that CCP can dictate how much and for how long by using the reload mechanic .. when it comes to the AAR, paste (price/size) is so distant as to be barely noticeable with regards to balancing.

It was originally to be field by cap charges, just like ASBs. The player base put forward a valid argument that with the need for cap charges to run boosters already, Armour ships would be at a disadvantage with balancing charges for tank, cap
and ammo.

Nanite paste was suggested and many people agreed, barely anyone, (if at all,) complained.


But at the time I naturally thought that going for nanite paste would mean no cap requirements and as such thought that it would be a great idea that would level the field with the minmatar. Now we have the worst of all worlds a module that costs cap and also needs nanite paste. I think this is what it must be like to have an idea in hell!

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1325 - 2013-02-11 22:56:29 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
I think the AAR would be more interesting as an OH function....

Since the heating rig is probably never going to happen, as the boost of multiple of the things would break everything even with stacking, perhaps we should start advocating a doubling or tripling of the AAR repair amount when heated.

Balance it by being just barely able to run the full eight cycles without redlining at thermo 5 so that the bursty aspect is enhanced for a very limited time .. rig can then make a comeback as a mimic of the T3 hull bonus instead of the initially proposed rep super charger .. such a heating rig has the potential to shake up far more than just a single module Twisted
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1326 - 2013-02-11 23:52:39 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
HazeInADaze wrote:
I think the AAR would be more interesting as an OH function....

Since the heating rig is probably never going to happen, as the boost of multiple of the things would break everything even with stacking, perhaps we should start advocating a doubling or tripling of the AAR repair amount when heated.

Balance it by being just barely able to run the full eight cycles without redlining at thermo 5 so that the bursty aspect is enhanced for a very limited time .. rig can then make a comeback as a mimic of the T3 hull bonus instead of the initially proposed rep super charger .. such a heating rig has the potential to shake up far more than just a single module Twisted

Why would the game need yet another option to tank 10 ships of your class by a mere press of a button? That's a vicous circle - bring more ships cause can't otherwise kill anything and then ask for even better tank.

The entire point of any armament (spaceships included) is to deal damage, kill and probably die as well. If one is looking for an ultimate tanking option, there's a bomb-shelter.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1327 - 2013-02-12 00:22:55 UTC
Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th.

I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1.

As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1328 - 2013-02-12 00:43:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Is it reasonable to expect further changes to armour tanking later on as battleship changes will come? Because 10% reduction in grid requirements for large reps is not that much, given the alternative way of tanking (via plates) still goes much easier (you can use several plates at a cost of just one repairer). At the same time 20% reduction for medium reps is really noticeble cause a single 1600mm plate usually used at medium ships already uses up more grid than 2 reps combined, so we are talking about comparable numbers here. As for the larger class, I don't see how these 10% will make large reps significantly more popular for battleships, but such a modest step surely makes much more sense if you plan to address the whole thing along with battleships themsevles.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1329 - 2013-02-12 09:06:28 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
...Why would the game need yet another option to tank 10 ships of your class by a mere press of a button? That's a vicous circle - bring more ships cause can't otherwise kill anything and then ask for even better tank.

The entire point of any armament (spaceships included) is to deal damage, kill and probably die as well. If one is looking for an ultimate tanking option, there's a bomb-shelter.

Ten ships by doubling/tripling heat bonus .. the ships you fight must all forget to activate guns or something. Heating a repper gives you -15% cycle and +10% amount, I propose it be +20-30% amount ... think you might have read it wrong.
Also, it will almost solely cater to plate/AAR fits as heat will be unmanageable with a second repper, doubly so if it is also heated for a cycle or so.

At any rate, 2.25x T1 performance is hardly game-breaking levels to begin with (barely 'bursty'), it will be like a deadspace repper with better efficiency, and won't really do much for any hull other than the Incursus as it is has room for the all-important injector .. the AAR is a "shut up already!" statement from CCP to the Gallente tank bonus whines, needed for sure but there is no reason not to design it so that other can benefit as well.

But, we are moving forward which is a huge thing in Eve Twisted and it will be good to see Brutes in space again if nothing else, will be annoying to see Incursus' at every corner though .. it was being set up to replace the Rifter as the 'go to' frigate (read: iWin) and the AAR cements it.
Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters).
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#1330 - 2013-02-12 10:54:45 UTC  |  Edited by: TehCloud
Quote:

Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters).


You know that the amarr resist bonus is still better for active tanking than a rep amount bonus?

My Condor costs less than that module!
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1331 - 2013-02-12 12:59:37 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th.

Enjoy the useless new module. Armor tanking is still broke, but don't worry, we'll take another look at it in a year. Or three.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1332 - 2013-02-12 13:51:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
TehCloud wrote:
Quote:

Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters).


You know that the amarr resist bonus is still better for active tanking than a rep amount bonus?

Is it? Numbers seem to indicate that 7.5% rep bonus active tanks more than resist ditto, not by much mind you but the armour resist hulls (except Abaddon) have no extra mids for that all important injector so the active rep hulls pulls away easily .. or perhaps you mean that the Amarr hulls can blow an extra low on an EANM/ANP to benefit from unstacked resists instead of a HS/TE?

Either way, where do you propose Amarr hulls are to get the cap from to avail of that 'advantage'? .. the real power of it is that resist bonus covers buffering/RR as well as active but with no mids to spare for cap a lot of Amarr hulls are stuck in FoTY BufferVille.
Mund Richard
#1333 - 2013-02-12 13:59:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
TehCloud wrote:
Quote:
Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters).
You know that the amarr resist bonus is still better for active tanking than a rep amount bonus?
Is it? Numbers seem to indicate that 7.5% rep bonus active tanks more than resist ditto, not by much mind you but it doesn't get better per se until after a while (read: far longer than one can reasonably expect a fight to last).
Where do you propose Amarr hulls are to get the cap from to avail of that 'advantage'? .. the real power of it is that it covers buffering/RR as well as active but with no mids to spare for cap a lot of Amarr hulls are stuck in FoTY buffer ville.

Cap?
On BC level, the 4th mid in the form of a cap booster, just like the Brutix.
Below?
Meh.

"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
#1334 - 2013-02-12 14:08:01 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Enjoy the useless new module. Armor tanking is still broke, but don't worry, we'll take another look at it in a year. Or three.

And according to you, what does armor need to be fixed ? Remember though that it shouldn't be OP after your proposed modifications.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#1335 - 2013-02-12 14:10:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th.

I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1.

As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th.


I hate posts like this, they make me feel that the game I'm paying monthly for is in a start of 'Open Beta'. Also this gives me no certainty for the future and I'm lost as to what skill decisions I should make or what technology I should invest in. Perhaps I am over reacting but I am hugely disappointed by the BC rebalancing with the exception of the Prophecy (as I fly amarr), now if every BC was worked over with some fresh ideas like the prophecy I'm sure that I would be happier...

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1336 - 2013-02-12 14:20:53 UTC
TehCloud wrote:
Quote:

Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters).


You know that the amarr resist bonus is still better for active tanking than a rep amount bonus?



This

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1337 - 2013-02-12 14:34:42 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
...Why would the game need yet another option to tank 10 ships of your class by a mere press of a button? That's a vicous circle - bring more ships cause can't otherwise kill anything and then ask for even better tank.

The entire point of any armament (spaceships included) is to deal damage, kill and probably die as well. If one is looking for an ultimate tanking option, there's a bomb-shelter.

Ten ships by doubling/tripling heat bonus .. the ships you fight must all forget to activate guns or something. Heating a repper gives you -15% cycle and +10% amount, I propose it be +20-30% amount ... think you might have read it wrong.

If that was your idea, then yes, I indeed read it wrong. Still I don't see how any way of increasing repping values can be beneficial long-term. Instead, addressing passive tanking and excessive EHP it provides is really the way to go.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Luc Chastot
#1338 - 2013-02-12 15:26:33 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th.

I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1.

As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th.


So much for an armor tanking fix; I guess players will adapt to the new changes and more silly stuff like the triple rep Myrm will appear.

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

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#1339 - 2013-02-12 15:40:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th.

I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1.

As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th.


So no word on the imbalance in the progression of strength and even cap efficiency between dead space armor reppers and shield boosters?

Fozzie... This is one of the largest imbalances in this entire tanking equation... You guys need to at least take a stance on it.
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
#1340 - 2013-02-12 16:45:53 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
Seriously, CCP, WTF?

It makes it sound like we're firing milk cannons at each other.

What's next? Armor Weetabixing?
Increases resistance to becoming soggy in milk by 2% per level.

"Armor Mass Reduction" or something like that sounds much better.

Merged with the main armour changes thread - ISD Suvetar

Please support: export of settings in editable format

Your stuff goes here.