These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

AAR = Devs Completely Shield Biased
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#81 - 2013-02-21 02:43:51 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
I don't think we're using the same numbers here.


It's pretty much always been accepted that 2 LAR is roughly equivalent to 1 XLSB. Trying to claim there should be parity between XLSB + SBA vs 2 LAR is ridiculous and you should know better. 2 LAR vs 1 XLSB or 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA. But 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA+Cap Rig is just... well, stupid.

-Liang

That's arguably the biggest problem with armor tanks tbh.

Paikis wrote:
You are comparing an EXTRA large module against a large. (Hint: try using large modules, not extra large)
You are comparing base stats. (Hint: you need to factor in skills)
You are comparing a handful of modules and complaining that things are out of balance (Hint: What about resists? What about speed and sig radius?)

1)Those numbers were with skills.

2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#82 - 2013-02-21 03:02:11 UTC
Cambarus wrote:
2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them.


That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all.

I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support.

Thank you.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#83 - 2013-02-21 03:39:33 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them.


That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all.

I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support.

Thank you.

Now you're just being a tool.

Liang, I was referring to two modules plus a rig being compared to 2 modules only, and asking you to fit a rig either for shield boosting or cap to balance out both sides of the equation.

Also, you did not address my question as to comparing the cost to what else a ship can fit with two LAR II and a rig that will have a drawback as against the fitting costs of an XLSB and a SBA. Downgrading of guns is often the result.

But I'm not here to play but but shield is better for blah blah reason no armor is better blah bla as Paikis appears to be. What I am pointing out is that shield not only is as cap efficient it also boosts more. If Paikis wants to complain about 1600s as against LSEs, then he will surely do the same as he asks of Cambarus and support armor regen, remote and local reps that land at the beginning of the cycle, etc. and we can be here all night.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#84 - 2013-02-21 04:02:32 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Cambarus wrote:
2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them.


That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all.

I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support.

Thank you.

The balance in buffer tanking lies in the fact that shields allow for greater mobility and damage projection and give up ewar abilities and raw tank. In active tanking armor loses the raw tanking advantage, and gains nothing in return.
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#85 - 2013-02-21 04:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Diesel47
All cap fleets in the game are armor tanked.

Yet you never see a shield cap pilot whining about it.

Armor is fine.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#86 - 2013-02-21 04:50:36 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Now you're just being a tool.


Oh no! He used the exact argument I did but it's not in my favour this time! Quick, call him names and hope that no one notices!
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#87 - 2013-02-21 07:13:23 UTC
Worst part is AAR using nano paste.

Let's see... ASB? Cap boosters. Mine in hisec for an hour, BPO yourself a thousand cap boosters.

Want nanopaste? Go find the right planet and max your PI skills, you might get hundred or so after a few days.

Fun!

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#88 - 2013-02-21 07:27:01 UTC
Paikis wrote:
You are comparing an EXTRA large module against a large. (Hint: try using large modules, not extra large)
You are comparing base stats. (Hint: you need to factor in skills)
You are comparing a handful of modules and complaining that things are out of balance (Hint: What about resists? What about speed and sig radius?)

Are we doing this again? Because it was dumb the first time too.

Try your numbers again using a LARGE SB + SBA vs 2x LARs and some actual skill points. And then try to realise that 3 modules are not the entirety of balance.


But you really are a tool. LAR is the largest armor module, XL largest shield module. You are right, tho, medium shield modules are equal to large armor mods.

Quote:
Then, here's some more things you need to think about:
You cannot just take tank into account. How much more damage does the ship with less tank get? Is it more vulnerable to being neuted? Is it faster or slower? Do it's guns need to be reloaded. Is its damage restricted to one or two damage types only? Can you reduce its damage to almost nothing through manual piloting? Does it have less tank/second but higher resistances, making it a better remote rep gang member?


Cool, lets do this.

- the ship with less tank gets less damage as dmg mods go to low slots
- yes it is more vulnerable to being neuted, using cap for guns and tank and being married to MWD
- yes it is slower
- guns need to be reloaded
- yes damage is restricted to two damage types
- yes you can easily reduce it's damage to nothing through manual piloting
- yes it has less tank and resistances


Quote:
There are so many things you need to factor in when talking about this, that I find anyone trying to tell me that it is unbalanced or unfair to be extremely arrogant. Did you think about all of that above? What about the bits I didn't type out? What happens when you take officer or deadspace mods into account?


Good point, shield deadspace and officer mods are several magnitudes better than armor mods.

By the way, there is no 2xLAR tank in this game, it is always 2xLAR+Heavy cap booster.

.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#89 - 2013-02-21 07:47:10 UTC
Your tears are delicious :)
Juan Andalusian
Shocky Industries Ltd.
Goonswarm Federation
#90 - 2013-02-21 08:37:55 UTC
Paikis there is a village somewhere in Mongolia that's missing it's fool.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#91 - 2013-02-21 08:56:25 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Your tears are delicious :)


You are so naive.

This is not about our tears, this is about the imbalance of tanks in EVE. Retribution 1.1 took a big step in the right direction by fixing the speed issue of active armor and helped a lot with fitting armor reppers, and even touched the mobility of buffer tanks a bit. (Personally I think armor buffer fits should remain bricks, they do have superior EHP and no problems with midslots)

However what it did not fix is the actual repping amount, cycle time and when reps happen, and the two-sided issue with capacitor. T2 medium and large armor reps still rep too little, too late and use too much cap not only in comparison to shield tank, but in comparison to what is needed in modern EVE, both in PVE and PVP.

This is the problem we have.

AARs have their value on certain ships, it needs to be seen as a mass-penalty free extension of plate. I just hope it's introduction does not mean that the underlying problems of normal armor repairers are left untouched.

.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#92 - 2013-02-21 16:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
What Paikis is saying is - shield has a larger booster, armor has a larger buffer and better resists. Saying armor tanking is worse because the reppers are smaller is equal to saying that shields are worse because 1600mm pates exist - it just doesn't hold water. Tldr, armor is fine.

Roime wrote:
AARs have their value on certain ships, it needs to be seen as a mass-penalty free extension of plate.


Which is exactly what ASBs are for shield tanks. Seems CCP hit it just right :)

P.s.: nano paste reps were demanded by players, the original iteration had cap boosters.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#93 - 2013-02-21 18:26:21 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:

Liang, I was referring to two modules plus a rig being compared to 2 modules only, and asking you to fit a rig either for shield boosting or cap to balance out both sides of the equation.

Also, you did not address my question as to comparing the cost to what else a ship can fit with two LAR II and a rig that will have a drawback as against the fitting costs of an XLSB and a SBA. Downgrading of guns is often the result.

But I'm not here to play but but shield is better for blah blah reason no armor is better blah bla as Paikis appears to be. What I am pointing out is that shield not only is as cap efficient it also boosts more. If Paikis wants to complain about 1600s as against LSEs, then he will surely do the same as he asks of Cambarus and support armor regen, remote and local reps that land at the beginning of the cycle, etc. and we can be here all night.


I know what you were referring to, but it was still fallacious. It is absolutely fallacious to compare an XL SB + SBA to 2 LAR, or to compare 1 LAR to an XL SB. This is you wanting module parity instead of game balance - because there is quite a big difference between the two.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#94 - 2013-02-21 18:27:18 UTC
Cambarus wrote:

The balance in buffer tanking lies in the fact that shields allow for greater mobility and damage projection and give up ewar abilities and raw tank. In active tanking armor loses the raw tanking advantage, and gains nothing in return.


You gain the use of your mid slots for ewar and tackle instead of for your tank. That is only "nothing" if you imagine eve PVP as sieged dreads shooting each other.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#95 - 2013-02-21 18:30:54 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Worst part is AAR using nano paste.

Let's see... ASB? Cap boosters. Mine in hisec for an hour, BPO yourself a thousand cap boosters.

Want nanopaste? Go find the right planet and max your PI skills, you might get hundred or so after a few days.

Fun!


More accurately:

ASB? Cap boosters. Mine in high sec for an hour, BPO yourself a thousand cap boosters. Go run FW missions and FW plexes for a few days. Go run some real missions to get some actual ISK to convert your LP with. Convert your LP. Now haul your cap boosters to where you need them.

AAR? Nanopaste. Go find the right planet and make nanites from scratch.

And even more accurately:
ASB? Right click, buy navy cap boosters. Contract black frog freight to take the cap boosters where you need them.
AAR? Right click, buy nano paste. Undock in a covops and take nanite paste where you need it.

It's almost like the people who were asking for nanite repair paste knew that cargo space was going to be a major issue. /gasp

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#96 - 2013-02-21 18:32:46 UTC
Roime wrote:
Paikis wrote:
Your tears are delicious :)


You are so naive.

This is not about our tears, this is about the imbalance of tanks in EVE. Retribution 1.1 took a big step in the right direction by fixing the speed issue of active armor and helped a lot with fitting armor reppers, and even touched the mobility of buffer tanks a bit. (Personally I think armor buffer fits should remain bricks, they do have superior EHP and no problems with midslots)

However what it did not fix is the actual repping amount, cycle time and when reps happen, and the two-sided issue with capacitor. T2 medium and large armor reps still rep too little, too late and use too much cap not only in comparison to shield tank, but in comparison to what is needed in modern EVE, both in PVE and PVP.

This is the problem we have.

AARs have their value on certain ships, it needs to be seen as a mass-penalty free extension of plate. I just hope it's introduction does not mean that the underlying problems of normal armor repairers are left untouched.



There's more to game balance than making sure there is exact parity between tanking styles. When was the last time you saw a shield tanked Cane with MWD, Disruptor, and dual web? Oh wait, it's almost like making the trade off to armor tanking has trade offs beyond tanking. Snap.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#97 - 2013-02-21 22:20:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Liang Nuren wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:

Liang, I was referring to two modules plus a rig being compared to 2 modules only, and asking you to fit a rig either for shield boosting or cap to balance out both sides of the equation.

Also, you did not address my question as to comparing the cost to what else a ship can fit with two LAR II and a rig that will have a drawback as against the fitting costs of an XLSB and a SBA. Downgrading of guns is often the result.

But I'm not here to play but but shield is better for blah blah reason no armor is better blah bla as Paikis appears to be. What I am pointing out is that shield not only is as cap efficient it also boosts more. If Paikis wants to complain about 1600s as against LSEs, then he will surely do the same as he asks of Cambarus and support armor regen, remote and local reps that land at the beginning of the cycle, etc. and we can be here all night.


I know what you were referring to, but it was still fallacious. It is absolutely fallacious to compare an XL SB + SBA to 2 LAR, or to compare 1 LAR to an XL SB. This is you wanting module parity instead of game balance - because there is quite a big difference between the two.

-Liang

Apparently, because it wasn't addressed specifically to you, you missed my counter arguement to that which you just posted. It would be fallacious to compare one LAR to an XLSB, but then I didn't do that. Red Herring. It is not fallacious to compare 2 LAR to XLSB + SBA. This is two modules per each ship. There is no module parity argument being made by me. I do not and did not decry the difference between an XL and a large (even though just labels) module. But one XL + a small ish item can be equated to 2 large. And they both collectively on each isde of the equation are taking two slots, two modules. To say as you did that one side of the equation should have a rig added but not the other is wrong.

So no, it is not fallacious. Additionally, the fitting cost of two LAR forces some more harsher choices on other parts of the ship than does an XLSB and SBA. We all know about smallest tier guns being the result or even undersized guns. Although it appears thankfully that with rebalancing the undersized gun phenomenon is receding.

Also, to argue with Cambarus that the shield tank negates the opportunity to fit multiple tackle mods is also to ignore the armor tank conflicting with damage mods. Around and around around it goes . . .

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#98 - 2013-02-21 22:29:11 UTC
No, I didn't miss your post. In fact, I was responding to it. So let me reiterate my post, and perhaps expound upon it:

I know what you were referring to, but it was still fallacious. It is absolutely fallacious to compare an XL SB + SBA to 2 LAR, or to compare 1 LAR to an XL SB. This is you wanting module parity instead of game balance - because there is quite a big difference between the two. The thing you are effectively complaining about is the fact that armor tanking and shield tanking are not exactly the same.

A standard armor tank is 2 reps, not 1 as you have with shields.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#99 - 2013-02-21 22:36:34 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Apparently, because it wasn't addressed specifically to you, you missed my counter arguement to that which you just posted. It would be fallacious to compare one LAR to an XLSB, but then I didn't do that. Red Herring. It is not fallacious to compare 2 LAR to XLSB + SBA. This is two modules per each ship.

So no, it is not fallacious. The fitting cost of two LAR forces some more harsher choices on other parts of the ship than does an XLSB and SBA. The two in isolation are using two slots. And to say as you did that one side of the equation should have a rig added but not the other is wrong.

Also, to argue with Cambarus that the shield tank negates the opportunity to fit multiple tackle mods is also to ignore the armor tank conflicting with damage mods. Around and around around it goes . . .

Count the number of ships with 6 mid slots ; then, count the number of ships with 6 low slots ; then, do the same with the number 7 instead of 6.

When its done, conclude.

After that, only to be sure, remove 2 mid slot, and 1 low slot (prop + tackle + DCU), and compare. Remember that it is easier to discard damage modules than prop or tackle. With no damage module, you can still do damage ; with no prop, you are dead ; and with no tackle, your target is alive.

Basic math, really, and you should find that no T1 ship have more than 4 mid slot to shield tank, 5 if discarding the tackle, versus a *lot* of ships having 5 or more low slot for armor tank.

Finaly, conclude that 2 mid slot are not equal to 2 low slots.

:-)
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#100 - 2013-02-21 22:36:54 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
A standard armor tank is 2 reps, not 1 as you have with shields.

-Liang

No, a standard active shield tank is a shield booster and a shield boost amp, or lol, two ASBs. A standard active armor tank has been two or even three armor reppers with undersized guns. Soon to be an AAR + normal AR, maybe no longer necessitating undersized guns but probably lowest tier guns, if anyone really bothers.

To say that one side of the equation should have a rig to go with the two modules but not the other, is to make it not an equation.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.