These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#301 - 2013-08-04 21:48:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is?



Fly them all so no, don't understand or see a problem with for 2 reasons:

I don't use OGB while flying solo, implants combat boosters and whatnot 1v1 (+15) elite pvp.

When I fit an L A-type +SBA on loki I can't avoid trying to fit a large armor rep on my Proteus but I can't no matter what I do but then without much effort I can also fit an X-type on my loki but still no large armor rep on my Proteus while having a greater buffer can't tank the same number of ships for as long and still survive unless I dishonor gtfo (strategic retreat Lol ).
Then I start tweaking a bit sleipnir fits and can safely tell you the problem doesn't come from the T3 rep sub or what the heck people complain about, ever tried to tank 15 arty Cyna gang with an Astarte and survive? -you can't but I can and did it often with a double xl-asb sleipnir.

The only problem comes from the OP links boosts+completely out of whack shield dead space modules. You guys don't want to admit it, don't want your solo (+alts) tralala pvp taken away which I can understand despite most arguments having no sense but in very specific situations that AREN'T relevant to any pvp balance. This game is an MMO, solo pvp/ships balance is not only irrelevant but stupid, talk about balance when difference in between tanking mods and their dedicated modules are so different and so badly balanced need some interest for the greater good and not only personal tràlàlà.

Now next time you want to argue about T3's rep openness remember about leave fleet not take drugs not fit pirate/named/fitting/navigation implants, then we might actually be able to discuss, until then I can't avoid laughing hard reading this thread and see my shield pvp setups becoming even more OP then they were before.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Pelea Ming
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#302 - 2013-08-04 22:08:19 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
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

The frigate isn't out repping a larger hull though, the legion is ... by 2 size categories, in fact.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#303 - 2013-08-05 07:54:30 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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?


Have you noticed that the Legion, like all T3s, have the optional subsystem giving bonuses to rep amount?

Compared to a battleship with rep local tank bonuses, T3s produce less raw reps. (Not saying that they'd actually tank less)




.

Syzygium
Nagamoto Inc.
Come in and freak out
#304 - 2013-08-05 08:03:02 UTC
Instead of just "tweaking" some modules you should take the time and do a complete rebalance over the meta-range.

It makes little sense to change a few modules and noticing afterwards that they are now better than some of the higher meta-versions, then again fixing these and so on... do a clear rework from tech1 over tech2, faction, deadspace and officer-variants, each version a bit better than the lower one, giving the player the option to invest lots of money for slightly better performance results.

always remember: bandaid solutions are bad by design and will fire back at some point sooner or later. if you do something, do it right.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#305 - 2013-08-05 09:40:32 UTC
Syzygium wrote:
Instead of just "tweaking" some modules you should take the time and do a complete rebalance over the meta-range...

I second that.

My misplaced post from the HAC thread:
Quote:
Seems to a continuing issue when we foul players break the balancing work by shield buffering armer hulls and vice versa and in an effort to make active tanking more viable you have now created (with ASBs and AAR) several ships with tanks surpassing the average dps available in the various classes.

So ..... I suggest a double whammy approach (while catering to my hatred for buffering in general and overbuffering in particular) by scrapping the repper boost from other thread and introducing a rule that says that a ships cannot gain more Hp from a buffer module than what it had prior to fitting it (essentially the same sort of calc that is done for resists)

What ship other than an identical ship will be able to defeat the Incursus for instance? Only option is to bring neuts, an option that doesn't even exist where ASBs are involved.

In short: Rethink the whole tanking concept from bottom up. Band-aids break.
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#306 - 2013-08-05 10:57:23 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
What ship other than an identical ship will be able to defeat the Incursus for instance? Only option is to bring neuts, an option that doesn't even exist where ASBs are involved.


Why Incursus pilot is using ASB?
Creon Ra
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#307 - 2013-08-05 11:19:08 UTC
Like the changes besides the lack of love for bling modules :P - will be interesting to see how the faction ones will work compared to their way more expensive bros with that kind of 15% boost.

Thx for the armor love :)
Udonor
Doomheim
#308 - 2013-08-05 11:55:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
SImply why?

Is this shift from warfare ganglinks to local powered repping an attempt to reduce the reasons for any but the small fleets?

On the other hand this increase in repping power can only extend the length of small fights in many case to ridiculous lengths. Perhaps the idea is to make 1v1 and even 1v2 kills dififcult or give time for a small fight to grow to a big fight even if buddies are in another system. So between repping and ganglinks it look like CCP heavily favors initial fleet sizes of 3-7 ships but would like to see fights undergo accretion into chaotic unguided blob battles from nothing if that small gang scenario doesn't happen.

In any case this idea threatens a long tradition of quick small scale PVP combat and getting gone before buddies for several jumps away can get there.

And while very small increases (3-4%) to armor repping might be acceptable if unneeded -- any increase in shield repping is unforgivable. Shield repping already has passive repping. Plus when shields are gone there is still armor left as a huge safety buffer. Just too much advantage to add more to shield tanks.

All and all this CCP move is just confusing.
Nova Satar
Annihilate.
#309 - 2013-08-05 11:58:13 UTC
A very much needed boost to solo and small gang pvp. Its good to see some attention ehre as active reps have long been fairly worthless. It should also help to stop the un-balancing issue of people shield fitting armour ships becuase active armour tanks are so bad.

Originally even with the hull bonus, the only effective active armor tank for the myrm was to triple rep it, leaving pretty poor dps. Whereas an ASB fit myrm still tanks more, has tackle, and does way more dps.

Hoping this boost will change that.
Hashi Lebwohl
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#310 - 2013-08-05 12:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hashi Lebwohl
There seems to be a concentration on fixing armor tanking which I don't see the need for. All the fleet doctrines of my alliance, excluding roaming short range naga's are armor doctrines. In the recent Fountain war the only shield doctrine being used was Caracals.

In recent months you have:

  • nerfed the shield compensation skills because there are no fleet/pvp quality passive shield hardners;
  • introduced a skill, armor honeycombing, to mitigation the speed penalty of plates; and
  • introduced a new reactive hardner module and a skill to improve its performance, armor resistance phasing.

Could you throw shield tanking fits a few bones too:

  • remove the penalty to capacitor power relays that applies to shield boosting - that nerf was introduced in the dim and distant past to address problems I don't see now - all it does is ensure that nobody contemplates shield boosting except for pve or with an ancillary shield booster;
  • introduced a skill, shield camouflage , to mitigation the signature radius bonus of shield extenders (love how you say you are improving the Eagle by reducing its signature radius when you know that the first thing getting fitted to it is a shield extender); and
  • introduced a new passive shield hardner module which acts as a reactive hardener and a skill to improve its performance, shield resistance phasing.
Udonor
Doomheim
#311 - 2013-08-05 12:03:20 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
A very much needed boost to solo and small gang pvp. Its good to see some attention ehre as active reps have long been fairly worthless. It should also help to stop the un-balancing issue of people shield fitting armour ships becuase active armour tanks are so bad.

Originally even with the hull bonus, the only effective active armor tank for the myrm was to triple rep it, leaving pretty poor dps. Whereas an ASB fit myrm still tanks more, has tackle, and does way more dps.

Hoping this boost will change that.


People keep telling me that faction and officer resists were the answer not triple reps :)
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club
The Devil's Tattoo
#312 - 2013-08-05 12:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Urkhan Law
Tobias Hareka wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
What ship other than an identical ship will be able to defeat the Incursus for instance? Only option is to bring neuts, an option that doesn't even exist where ASBs are involved.

Why Incursus pilot is using ASB?


You didn't understood what she said. Band Aids break, period.
ASB was an example, is not applicable to Incursus.

With some exceptions. almost nobody uses regular shield boosters anymore because of ASB (my experience is only in Frigs). The problem is not the Armor repairer buff itself, I think it's a needed buff at least to the small armor reps, the problem is the fact that there are some ships that clearly do NOT need that buff, and here is where enters the Incursus (damn rails).

And of course you will always have people saying that balance 1vs1 do not matter in a mmo, that it is perfectly fine that some ships stomp the others within the same class, that they are objective and only think in the greater good of the game, when the truth is that they are simply trying to pull things the way they prefer for the ships and weapon systems they like. We all do it in one way or the other, even if the only thing we want is something close to *balance* (utopia).
Damn, I do it for my Rifters. :-)
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#313 - 2013-08-05 12:43:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Roime wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
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?


Have you noticed that the Legion, like all T3s, have the optional subsystem giving bonuses to rep amount?

Compared to a battleship with rep local tank bonuses, T3s produce less raw reps. (Not saying that they'd actually tank less)



I did for a long time and that's why I laugh anyway reading these guys putting in the same sentence the "OP T3's" with "supercarrier tanks" "doomsday dps" "triage super self reps" etc.
Myths, because they can't do all of it at the same time, there's always a trade off and not a small one opening a huge defensive hole no one or very little cares to take the time to understand how to break or counter, OGBs just make them out of whack but at the very beginning it's not really the ship but some stupid mechanics that need to go away.

Let me just copy pasta again this guy comment : "The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does."

Well maybe in his other game I don't know which one because in Eve T3's don't have a self build local rep bonus but it's a subsystem trading other stats which usually is buffer and less lows/mids.
Now without even going any further than the hated HAMgu while the ridiculous mount of reps from sub bonus on top of T2 SBA+dead space A-type med SB+combat booster+links+implants, I can simply take a Maelstrom for the same example and push even greater stupid numbers.
Yet do you see people complaining about those? -no because T3 with all those funky solo I win buttons is the best option overall over a fat slow ass battleship for solo (with ogb) elite pvp

How is this even possible in the first place?
-oversize shield modules for "x" hull, in armor you simply can't
-HPS/cap efficiency of dead space SBs (not even accounting officer SBs or SBAs) being in between 250% better (without links) to 900% when you factor all possible improvement methods/tools.

So if we want to talk about T3's tank/dps ability we need to do it right with a rep bonus battleship and we need to do it in between armor T3vsarmor BS then shield T3vs shield BS but try to compare both its like searching to get aids or cancer, it's just impossible because of so much illogical difference in HPS/cap between same size/meta armor reps vs shield reps.

No way in hell I get fingers in the nose over 5K local reps per 5s cycle with armor reps and certainly not at cruiser/bc size, yet this is possible with shields (wihtout OGB or whatsoever) while still accumulating as good if not bigger buffer than armor ones cap immunity good dps output and a rather good maneuverability for ships supposed to be thick tanks unsustainable but bursting huge chunks of it.

Yet why you are able to push 200k EHP on Tengus with blaster range dps? -is it the ship it self the problem or the silliness of shield mods, oversize prop mods etc?

The whole mechanics seem ok but it's modules that are way way left out of balance hammer for whatever unexplainable reason, yet numbers are there and easy to figure out as long as you can fly and use them all in different pvp situations.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#314 - 2013-08-05 12:55:26 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
  • introduced a new passive shield hardner module which acts as a reactive hardener and a skill to improve its performance, shield resistance phasing.[/list]

  • The moment it takes as much cap per activation as armor this would be cool for my shield ships but knowing CCP this could very well end with a 15CPU 1pg module all passive resist increase with co cap use.

    Well I would use it for sure Lol

    removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

    Roime
    Shiva Furnace
    #315 - 2013-08-05 14:11:34 UTC
    Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

    The whole mechanics seem ok but it's modules that are way way left out of balance hammer for whatever unexplainable reason, yet numbers are there and easy to figure out as long as you can fly and use them all in different pvp situations.


    EVE playerbase in essence is a super-efficient spaceship optimization instrument. There's a ton of really smart people equipped with established and custom tools constantly pushing the envelope of what can be done with the myriad of toys CCP throws us, then combine this with a rapid testing environment full of unrelated operators flying, discussing, copying and improving the stuff others come up with.

    It's only logical to expect this kind of machine coming up with extreme cases that developers couldn't predict, meaning that there will always be annoying outliers, OP ships and fits. Preemptive measures against these would result in a very boring game, but it would probably be good to react to these in a reasonable amount of time.

    I do give props to CCP for improving their balancing times, stuff actually gets fixed now and current PVP meta is wonderfully heterogenic, fast-changing and level compared to what it was when I started EVE.

    .

    W0lf Crendraven
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #316 - 2013-08-05 15:02:10 UTC
    Just for info, you can get over 6k active armour tank from a legion, and 6.7k from a abaddon.

    Shield tank is in no way op, nor is armour tank underpowered, people who think that simply dont pvp much (or only do it in blobs). Yes, crystals give shield tankers an edge but nobles arent bad either and armour is way more cap efficient.

    A pimped out astarte for example has less burst tank then a pimped sleipnir but due to pith x type cap consumtion it tanks quite a lot more overall. And if the sleipnir uses gist boosters it loses the edge and the armour tank simply tanks more.

    And with the link changes a asb sleip tanks 3.8k dps with per asb with tengu links, hg crystals and a strong blue pill, that is already less then what a pimped armour tanker can tank, gets even weirder if you start to favor in the cycle time, 60 sec reload, ca 33 secs of boost per booster = a under 2k dps tank in reality. And thats with the best implants/links in game.

    And while that sleipnir with heat reaches a 2.5k active tank, or a 5k burst tank with pith x a blinged hyperion (no officer stuff) can easily top 9k (again with nerfed links).

    A fully blinged maelstrom tanks even less.


    Armour tank is already superior to a shield tank in most situations on tq (a dual masb hawk for example reps in reality less then a dualrep incursus).


    (all numbers with current propsed link/rep changes)
    Michael J Caboose
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #317 - 2013-08-05 15:27:54 UTC
    W0lf Crendraven wrote:
    Just for info, you can get over 6k active armour tank from a legion, and 6.7k from a abaddon.

    Shield tank is in no way op, nor is armour tank underpowered, people who think that simply dont pvp much (or only do it in blobs). Yes, crystals give shield tankers an edge but nobles arent bad either and armour is way more cap efficient.

    A pimped out astarte for example has less burst tank then a pimped sleipnir but due to pith x type cap consumtion it tanks quite a lot more overall. And if the sleipnir uses gist boosters it loses the edge and the armour tank simply tanks more.

    And with the link changes a asb sleip tanks 3.8k dps with per asb with tengu links, hg crystals and a strong blue pill, that is already less then what a pimped armour tanker can tank, gets even weirder if you start to favor in the cycle time, 60 sec reload, ca 33 secs of boost per booster = a under 2k dps tank in reality. And thats with the best implants/links in game.

    And while that sleipnir with heat reaches a 2.5k active tank, or a 5k burst tank with pith x a blinged hyperion (no officer stuff) can easily top 9k (again with nerfed links).

    A fully blinged maelstrom tanks even less.


    Armour tank is already superior to a shield tank in most situations on tq (a dual masb hawk for example reps in reality less then a dualrep incursus).


    (all numbers with current propsed link/rep changes)


    I call shenanigans. Post your fits for this epic armor tanking Legion/Abaddon. If they can do it at all, it's certain they are incapable of doing it for long, and are incapable of doing anything else but tank.

    Stop trolling. 0/10
    Pelea Ming
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #318 - 2013-08-05 16:19:51 UTC
    W0lf Crendraven wrote:
    Just for info, you can get over 6k active armour tank from a legion, and 6.7k from a abaddon.

    Shield tank is in no way op, nor is armour tank underpowered, people who think that simply dont pvp much (or only do it in blobs). Yes, crystals give shield tankers an edge but nobles arent bad either and armour is way more cap efficient.

    A pimped out astarte for example has less burst tank then a pimped sleipnir but due to pith x type cap consumtion it tanks quite a lot more overall. And if the sleipnir uses gist boosters it loses the edge and the armour tank simply tanks more.

    And with the link changes a asb sleip tanks 3.8k dps with per asb with tengu links, hg crystals and a strong blue pill, that is already less then what a pimped armour tanker can tank, gets even weirder if you start to favor in the cycle time, 60 sec reload, ca 33 secs of boost per booster = a under 2k dps tank in reality. And thats with the best implants/links in game.

    And while that sleipnir with heat reaches a 2.5k active tank, or a 5k burst tank with pith x a blinged hyperion (no officer stuff) can easily top 9k (again with nerfed links).

    A fully blinged maelstrom tanks even less.


    Armour tank is already superior to a shield tank in most situations on tq (a dual masb hawk for example reps in reality less then a dualrep incursus).


    (all numbers with current propsed link/rep changes)

    SPecifically, I'm referring to Level 4 mission running fits, and no, to fit an abbadon with enough resists/damage/etc, a comparably fit Legion easily will out-rep it.
    W0lf Crendraven
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #319 - 2013-08-05 16:34:07 UTC  |  Edited by: W0lf Crendraven
    Im not taking about pve, i couldnt care less about it.

    Im taking for numbers for blinged out (x type deadspace reppers and so on) pvp fits, with nobles, strong exiles and legion links.


    (watch a old garmonation video for example, one of those armour repping ships easily broke 6k active tank)
    Omnathious Deninard
    Ministry of Silly Walks.
    The Gurlstas Associates
    #320 - 2013-08-05 19:38:02 UTC
    The final thing armor tanking needs to be an effective sustained tanking system is there capacitor usage reduced.

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