These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey 1.1] Local Armor and Shield repair module changes

First post
Author
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#281 - 2013-08-03 20:48:41 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Is it just me, or does this Vyktor guy's posts seem to be horrible troll?


got the same problem with Poetic Stanziel, you never know if you either mistunderstood these people or what not Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
#282 - 2013-08-03 20:56:38 UTC
Quote:
We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.


Dropped my alt boosters long time ago CCP, I like to play it rough now in... Star Trek Online Cool
Still nice of you to be a little considerate of customers who spend a lot of skill training time (and plex) into these maxed out alts.

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Pelea Ming
Tax Evasion Fund
Sandbaggers United
#283 - 2013-08-03 21:35:41 UTC
I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P
Shinzhi Xadi
Doomheim
#284 - 2013-08-03 23:54:04 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P


Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship..

Mac Pro dual 6-core Xeon 3.06ghz, 24gig ecc ram, EVGA GTX 680 Mac Edition, Intel SSD, OS X Yosemite and Windows 8.1 Pro.

Crown Heights
Doomheim
#285 - 2013-08-03 23:54:27 UTC
so many changes its hard to keep up with what to qq about.

i want to qq thats for sure.

When something is OP i dont want to do it. I want to get my ass kicked by it and qq about it.





Pelea Ming
Tax Evasion Fund
Sandbaggers United
#286 - 2013-08-04 00:13:25 UTC
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P


Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship..



Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#287 - 2013-08-04 05:11:00 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps?
Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%?


Aside from the ancillary shield boosters (which aren't getting buffed) and the Gist line of shield boosters, which also aren't getting boosted, shield really isn't better than armor.

it's an arguable point, since for the same amount of raw HP, shield doesn't have to give up speed/agility, and also has passive regen, while armor is only gaining not having it's sig rad boosted by some mods/rigs.

Oh, yea, and armor reps typically have higher cap drain to them.

Also, even CCP acknowledges that shield is overall all somewhat superior to armor tank, hence the attempted addressing of that balance by introducing AARs and that overly-cap hungry resistance shifting hardner (the latter of which has still overwhelmingly been proven to be useless in PvP despite attempts to 'balance' it).

(and from my own experience, because of it's cap need, usually useless in PvE on anything smaller then a BS)

Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT. This is only offset by a longer repair time. And even including that, armor repairers do their job more efficiently than shield boosters. This coupled with stronger base resistances across the board makes for a better active tank. While it may anger some people that they have to activate their repairers earlier since the repair is at the end of the cycle, armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets. Yes you sacrifice agility when armor fitted but that's the trade-off. It's one if the few things shields are better at. Another trade-off is damage modules vs utility slots. Both types of tank will lose some hp/resists if they try to fit the opposing one. Each one has its upsides and downsides but neither is really better than the other at too many things. It's all about the choices you make when you choose what to fly and how to fit it.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#288 - 2013-08-04 08:03:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikuno
Rowells wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
[quote=Xequecal][quote=Pelea Ming]stuff.

more stuff

armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets.

extra stuff



No, ASBs are always better for just about any fight not involving remote reps, that's why they've been very deliberately missed from these increases. Hopefully this will give armour reps a greater degree of parity, though with the 1 per ship limit on AARs and ASBs having no such exclusion I expect a considerable difference in efficacy to continue.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
The Gurlstas Associates
#289 - 2013-08-04 08:14:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Rowells wrote:

Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT.

Sorry this is only true for burst tanking.
Rowells wrote:
Armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat.

Shield tanking is better for sustained combat not armor, with passive regeneration, faster reps and over time a lower capacitor usage shield tanking wins.

Shield Booster
1 X-Large Shield Booster II
1 Shield Boost Amplifier II
1 Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
1 Core Defense Operational Safeguard I
Will rep 816HP in 4.25s for 342GJ

Armor Repair
2 Large Armor Repairer II
1 Nanobot Accelerator
1 Auxiliary Nano Pump
Will rep 1840HP in 9.5625s for 800GJ

With this it takes 153 seconds for the cycles to equal out. 2 min 33 sec

Shield tanking HP boosted 29,376
Cap Usage 12,312GJ
Number of cycles 36

Armor tanking HP repped 29,440
Cap usage 12,800
Number of cycles 16

With all that said I would like to see armor cap usage reduced as following
Large Armor Repairer II 215GJ
Medium Armor Repairer II 85GJ
Small Armor Repairer II 32GJ

The cycle time and HP amount should not be altered beyond what is happening in this thread.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

poepstreep66
United Electro-Magnetic Federation
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#290 - 2013-08-04 10:22:43 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
(except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs)


So instead of actually addressing the imbalance in progression of power for deadspace/officer shield boosters on a more detailed levels you've just decided to not add a blanket buff you're giving to the other shield boosters?

While I agree with the motive, the actions just seem so half assed...

I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just that there have been multiple threads over the years in which the specific imbalances of deadspace/officer shield booster have already been outlined perfectly for you and your balance minions. I find it highly unlikely you will be addressing the nonsensicalness of these values once your proposed changes hit the server, this I find worrisome.

Finally someone who is getting the picture!
Cambarus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#291 - 2013-08-04 13:50:52 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Boris Amarr wrote:
AAR shouldn't use capacitor like ASB. Amarr ships don't have enough capacitor to fire. How can they use active tanking. If you remove capacitor usage for AAR - it will be good solution to use active tanking for ship, that have troubles with capacitor.

No, no more Neut immune local rep please.

If anything needs to change, they should make the ASB use cap when loaded with cap boosters, just probably use way less cap

Im thinking like 50 cap per cycle when loaded

Nopenopenopenope.jpg

There needs to be more active tanking not affected by neuts, not less. Neuts are far too ubiquitous as it stands, the benefits are just too huge not to slap a neut into every spare high on damn near every ship.
Pelea Ming
Tax Evasion Fund
Sandbaggers United
#292 - 2013-08-04 14:11:43 UTC
I don't think that AAR's should use no cap... but I think having them use less cap would be a good idea.
Pheadra Aurilen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#293 - 2013-08-04 17:59:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Pheadra Aurilen
[quote=CCP Fozzie

You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.[/quote]

I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2.

The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies.

However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced.

IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#294 - 2013-08-04 18:45:59 UTC
monkfish1234 wrote:
this almost sounds like your encouraging something other than buffer and logis........

possibly the best change in the last 4 years.


I agree. This will make kitchen fleet scramble fleets much better for introducing noobs to PvP.
Pelea Ming
Tax Evasion Fund
Sandbaggers United
#295 - 2013-08-04 18:57:46 UTC
Pheadra Aurilen wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.


I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2.

The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies.

However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced.

IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion.

Or you could reduce the cap draw abit on the large & x-large pith boosters.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#296 - 2013-08-04 19:39:00 UTC
Pelea Ming wrote:
I don't think that AAR's should use no cap... but I think having them use less cap would be a good idea.



AAR's have so much potential but 15% HP increase isn't going to fix them..

- nanite skills affecting AAR's
- reduced cap need
- remove limit of 1 AAR per ship
- reduce cycle time so reps are frequent
- change reload time either reduce to 15-20 secs or use an inject system
- when nanite runs out AAR reps at 75% until more nanite paste is injected which takes 15-20 secs whilst still repping at 75% of normal and then can rep at usual nanite paste rate.

This promotes armour repping as more continuous but repping less than shield boosters

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#297 - 2013-08-04 19:56:50 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
Sweet, my archon can now tank 10 supers with links, drugs, rep rigs and implants. (We already have 2 pimp fit archons that can tank 3 nyxes for ~10 minutes).

Perhaps you should stop overlooking the carriers when you buff the reps because all the changes are overdoing it just a little.



The issue comes from the +resist everyone says for ages is completely op. Take those 4% per lvl away, problem solved.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#298 - 2013-08-04 19:59:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Pelea Ming wrote:
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:
Pelea Ming wrote:
I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P


Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship..



Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second.



And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.

It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?

Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#299 - 2013-08-04 21:11:38 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:



And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.

It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?

Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm


Except you failed in reading comprehension.
The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does. Before taking into account any sig/angular velocity mitigation, i.e. Sit both of them completely still inside frig optimal also sitting still and the T3 Reps more. Meaning it tanks dramatically more once you add in those factors. Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is?
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#300 - 2013-08-04 21:39:11 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues,


I could swear some of the dev types have posted that they can, do, and need to balance things around PvE as well as PvP.