These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Batelle
Filthy Peasants
#361 - 2013-08-07 18:59:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ok, update to the plan.

We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer)
We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses.
ASBs still not getting changed.

New version of the changelist:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

  • Let us know what you think!


    Ok, WTF. SRSLY. This is worse than just taking away the bonus from the faction boosters idea that you had earlier. Lets step back a moment. All forms of active boosting need to gain ground on deadspace shield boosters (particularly Pithi, Pithum, and Gist). The previous plan achieved this without nerfing anything. The previous plan had the problem of making faction shield boosters better than C-types (but ONLY at the L and X-L level for the DG-Pith boosters).

    15% vs 10% does NOT constitute the other forms of reps gaining meaningful ground on the deadspace shield boosters.

    Please look at this table here: http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Shield_Booster

    If you look at this, you'll see the ONLY place where the jump from faction -> C-type is "small," (and thus the 15% bonus to the faction version would make faction outclass the C-type) is for gurista/Pith L and X-L boosters. For Domination->Gist, the cap efficiency and raw boost amount goes up majorly. For small and medium boosters, the cap efficiency and raw boost amount goes up HUGELY from DG->pithum c-type and domination->gistum c-type.

    Gist boosters do not need increased boost amounts at all (maybe the Gist L ones do, but not by much). Also, the dread guristas faction boosters are not OP at any level. If you buff the t2 without buffing DG, you'll see DG get less cap efficient because currently their only bonus is lower skill requirement and shorter cycle time. HP/cap is identical to t2.


    SOLUTION
    + Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
    + Increase the shield bonus of all Tech 1, Tech 2, Domination, Dread Gursitas, Caldari Navy, Republic Fleet, and Storyline shield boosters by 15%
    + Increase the shield bonus of all Pith Large and X-Large shield boosters by 15% (and their identical officer versions)
    + Increase the shield bonus of Gist Large boosters by 5% (and their identical officer versions)


    Effects:
    Net nerf (not a nerf, just a reduced advantage) to pithi,gisti, pithum, gistum, and Gist-XL boosters. These are the ones that are out of line. Even at the C-types, these boosters are where the numbers go crazy. Yes, you can see very clearly where the numbers go crazy if you calculate the HP/Sec, HP/cap for each booster. For ALL of the faction versions, the numbers are in line.

    Sorry for the jumbled post and me repeating myself. Cannot stress enough how important it is to recognize exactly which boosters the numbers get crazy for. I have been ranting about this for YEARS, because thats when i figured out the numbers were ABSURD. It also has interesting affect on the distribution of explorers in empire space). PLZ RESPOND. Also nice job casting the tournament.

    "**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

    Never forget.

    Michael J Caboose
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #362 - 2013-08-07 19:20:30 UTC
    Batelle wrote:
    *snip*


    SOLUTION
    + Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
    + Increase the shield bonus of all Tech 1, Tech 2, Domination, Dread Gursitas, Caldari Navy, Republic Fleet, and Storyline shield boosters by 15%
    + Increase the shield bonus of all Pith Large and X-Large shield boosters by 15% (and their identical officer versions)
    + Increase the shield bonus of Gist Large boosters by 5% (and their identical officer versions)


    Effects:
    Net nerf (not a nerf, just a reduced advantage) to pithi,gisti, pithum, gistum, and Gist-XL boosters. These are the ones that are out of line. Even at the C-types, these boosters are where the numbers go crazy. Yes, you can see very clearly where the numbers go crazy if you calculate the HP/Sec, HP/cap for each booster. For ALL of the faction versions, the numbers are in line.



    How does buffing all Pith L and XL boosters by the same 15% result in a reduced advantage? Any buff to the L and XL Deadspace/Officer shield boosters should be maybe 5%, not the 10% Fozzie has proposed, and definitely not the full 15% that armor reppers and T1/T2 shield boosters are getting.
    Sergeant Acht Scultz
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #363 - 2013-08-07 19:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
    Batelle wrote:
    + Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
    + Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%


    I would like to point out that this results in a boost to all local tanking except for the deadspace shield boosters. This is a good thing as we both A) don't get anything nerfed. B) non-deadspace shield boosting as well as armor tanking of the pimped and non-pimped variety becomes more viable.


    This is something that has been needed for years, independent of any changes to links. Bravo.



    Right now, the gap in between local armor reps and shield reps is already huge but instead of fixing that a 15% buff to armor reps is followed by a 10% boost to all shield boosters.
    So in the end my armor ships will still be far behind my shield ships, it's one step forward and a half step back. Roll

    removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

    Batelle
    Filthy Peasants
    #364 - 2013-08-07 19:50:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
    Michael J Caboose wrote:

    How does buffing all Pith L and XL boosters by the same 15% result in a reduced advantage?

    Not all boosters are created equally, and that's the rub. The gap between them and t2 shield stuff is the same as the gap between deadpsace armor and t2 armor reps, meaning the Pith boosters should get the same 15%. Pithum medium and Gist X-L are the ones that are out of line. Basically all t2 and ALL faction have 1.5 Hp/GJ (Gigajoule) efficiency. Faction versions have better cycle time. Then C-types have a 10% increase in efficiency over t2. B-types have a 20% higher efficiency, and so on. This is how it works for ALL armor modules as well (i'm fairly sure, except armor start with 2hp/GJ baseline). But small/med deadspace, and large/XL Gist are just INEXPLICABLY off the charts on this metric.

    Shields are supposed to rep faster and be less efficient than armor, and thats true for all t1, t2, faction modules of either shield or armor. But SOME (not all) of the deadspace shield mods throw this out the window and outclass their armor counterparts on both counts of efficiency and speed.

    Dread Guristas Medium Shield Booster: 1.5 Hp/GJ
    Pithum C-type Medium Shield booster: 2.71 Hp/GJ (more efficient than any armor repper in the game)

    DG Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ
    Pith C-Type X-Large: 1.65 Hp/GJ (10% efficiency bonus)

    DG X-Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ
    Pith C-Type X-Large: 1.65 Hp/GJ (10% efficiency bonus)

    Domination Med Booster: 1.5 Hp/GJ
    Gistum C-type Med Booster: 3.625 HP/GJ

    Domination Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ
    Gist C-type Large: 2.38 Hp/GJ

    Domination X-Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ
    Gist C-type X-Large: 2.93 Hp/GJ (WTF, this is the C-type, not even the X-type)

    Now this is just HP/Cap efficiency. There's a different story if you consider the amount repped per second, which matters as well in both PVE and PVP. This is why the Pithum A-types are the best boosters even though they're less efficient than their gistum counter parts, and why Gist L boosters are super efficient but actually run into rep-speed problems in some scenarios. But it clearly explains why the Gist X-L boosters, which have both Insane efficiency and high HP/Sec makes them extremely powerful modules in all applications.

    I've seen golem fits that run on 1 pithum A-type booster and 2 invulns. These mods specifically are the holy grail of efficient perma tanking without the traditional sacrifices of rep amount or damage application/projection. The gap between the DG med booster and the pithum C-type is so large that I simply wouldn't use my PVE tengu without one (nearly doubled sustained tank!!!! well worth 300m when I'm going into 8/10s and 10/10s). Take a look at eve-central, the imbalances in the base numbers are reflected inn the market prices.

    If you do a forum search of the ships&modules subforum covering the last 5 years, you will find much more detailed charts including both shield and armor mods, including the rep/second numbers. All of this work has been done and discussed before, multiple times. Its well known among members of the community which modules are out of line. But this is the first time in years this aspect of shield/armor balance has had dev attention.

    Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

    So in the end my armor ships will still be far behind my shield ships, it's one step forward and a half step back. Roll

    I made the post you quoted right as Fozzie put up his changes (which he made having seen the gap between DG boosters to Pith C-types was small, even though this is nearly the only example of this). I quoted the original changes, which were closer to what we want than the second version.

    "**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

    Never forget.

    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #365 - 2013-08-07 20:22:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
    FOZZIE

    when you introduced the AAR the rationale armour tanking was supposed to be more continuous repping than shield boosting.
    This is what people want to hear but you do not do it in practice..

    - continuous repping would be reps every second or this statement was nonsense ... now granted the server might not allow for every second but 2 seconds you can do ...

    - so less reps than shield boosting but more frequent and with a low cap usage would make sense and give armour an advantage over shield boosting. as atm shields are just plain better.

    AAR's
    - remove limit of 1 per ship
    - allow nanite skills to affect nanite paste use in AAR's
    - when nanite paste runs out allow reps to continue at normal rep amount minus the paste bonuses.
    - use an inject system instead of reload... so it takes 15 seconds to inject nanite paste whilst reps continue as normal non nanite paste amounts... this makes sense as nanite paste is tiny so wouldn't take long to reload or inject compared to bulky Cap boosters if you don't do these things than ASB's will always be superior

    For normal armour reps just make them rep more than AAR's by default but obviously less as no nanite paste to boost amount

    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

    xHxHxAOD
    Reckless Insurgence
    Freight Train Diplomacy
    #366 - 2013-08-07 20:51:17 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ok, update to the plan.

    We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer)
    We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses.
    ASBs still not getting changed.

    New version of the changelist:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

  • Let us know what you think!


    not bad would like to see armor reps have a 10-15% less cap but what ever
    Fonac
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #367 - 2013-08-07 21:17:51 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ok, update to the plan.

    We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer)
    We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses.
    ASBs still not getting changed.

    New version of the changelist:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

  • Let us know what you think!



    I was wondering why the deadspace shield boosters did not recieve any boost. Glad you retrified that.

    I do however think that armor reppers need to have their cap usage reduced, across the board, like the gist variant vs pith variant, more rep for more cap, and vice versa.

    It would be nice to see the same thing with corpus armor reppers and centus version.
    This would also make one version more viable for pve usage, and one more for pvp.

    Exactly like the shield versions.

    Sven Viko VIkolander
    Allemannsrett
    #368 - 2013-08-07 21:24:08 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

  • Let us know what you think!



    Power creep. Serious power creep.
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #369 - 2013-08-07 21:30:28 UTC
    Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

  • Let us know what you think!



    Power creep. Serious power creep.


    I don't think you know what that word means.

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Pelea Ming
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #370 - 2013-08-07 23:13:06 UTC
    Seriously, something still needs to be done in regards to cap on the armor reppers.
    W0lf Crendraven
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #371 - 2013-08-07 23:13:07 UTC
    High active tanking numbers, and active tanking in general, is a bad mechanic, with low numbers it is ok, but once you enter a number where you can easily permatank one opponent of similar size you enter a very bad zone.

    Your intentiones are good (buff active takning while enrfing tanking links to even it out) but you create a to highly tanked meta which is very bad.

    Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.

    Do you think a vengeance should be able to tank over 600 dps with drugs and heat alone, no implants, no links?

    Make sure not to overbuff!!
    Veshta Yoshida
    PIE Inc.
    Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
    #372 - 2013-08-07 23:43:16 UTC
    W0lf Crendraven wrote:
    ...Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough....

    The addition of AAR's alone did that on the frig scale. AAR+Plate (oversized of course!) can generally not be broken using frig dps, and to think that they considered a 10%/lvl bonus on the Incursus at the start of the pass .. .. hahahahaha.

    On the flip-side (DOOM-sayer edition); Neuts will get a massive bump in use as active tanking becomes viable on paper making laser hulls extinct and stapling the dunce cap onto the pitiful NOS forever more. ASB missile spam, ASB auto-cannons, AAR blasters and AAR drones .. don't bother otherwise .. half the freshly rebalanced hulls made obsolete by inability to compete in the tank/dps race.
    Thaman Arnuad
    The Caldarian Templars
    #373 - 2013-08-07 23:44:02 UTC
    Harvey James wrote:
    FOZZIE

    when you introduced the AAR the rationale armour tanking was supposed to be more continuous repping than shield boosting.
    This is what people want to hear but you do not do it in practice..

    - continuous repping would be reps every second or this statement was nonsense ... now granted the server might not allow for every second but 2 seconds you can do ...

    - so less reps than shield boosting but more frequent and with a low cap usage would make sense and give armour an advantage over shield boosting. as atm shields are just plain better.

    AAR's
    - remove limit of 1 per ship
    - allow nanite skills to affect nanite paste use in AAR's
    - when nanite paste runs out allow reps to continue at normal rep amount minus the paste bonuses.
    - use an inject system instead of reload... so it takes 15 seconds to inject nanite paste whilst reps continue as normal non nanite paste amounts... this makes sense as nanite paste is tiny so wouldn't take long to reload or inject compared to bulky Cap boosters if you don't do these things than ASB's will always be superior

    For normal armour reps just make them rep more than AAR's by default but obviously less as no nanite paste to boost amount


    I support this.

    I would like there to be some thought about a mod for armor that functions like a Shield Booster Amp.
    Crazy On You
    Professional Dockers
    #374 - 2013-08-07 23:49:43 UTC
    I love the changes here foz. But are any plans to differentiate between the corp and cent deadspace armor repairers? Would love to have some sort of variety there.
    Pelea Ming
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #375 - 2013-08-08 00:11:56 UTC
    Not to rain on anyone's parade, but you do realize that so far, the 'tweaks' to various weapon systems have had the net effect of making them more powerful... I don't see, therfor, that making shield/armor reps abit more powerful as a bad thing.
    Iome Ambraelle
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #376 - 2013-08-08 00:36:17 UTC
    Why not make AARs work slightly differently than they do today. Under normal operation they would rep an amount appropriate for the module's meta level and consume no paste. When overheated they would take the normal amount of heat damage. However, this damage would be mitigated by consuming the paste that is loaded in the module. The amount of paste consumed could then be modified by the pilot's appropriate skills in overheating and also receive bonuses from ship hulls like T3 cruisers.

    I see two benefits to this approach. First it would make the module more interactive in that the rep boost can be controlled. Under normal tanking situations you don't have to burn paste (@ 15k a pop JITA) just to rep. You can burn the paste when you need the extra boost. Second, I like how it would tie into other skills and ship bonuses. The capacity of the module and the boost amount would probably need to be tweaked. However this change would make the AAR truly unique when compared to their shield cousins.

    Shield Tanking - Why armor tanking can't have nice things.

    Heribeck Weathers
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #377 - 2013-08-08 01:01:01 UTC
    W0lf Crendraven wrote:
    *snip*

    Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.



    I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before.
    Pelea Ming
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #378 - 2013-08-08 01:10:29 UTC
    I also rather liked how one must assume he finds anything larger then 1v1 to be a blob :P
    MotherMoon
    Tribal Liberation Force
    Minmatar Republic
    #379 - 2013-08-08 01:13:50 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Ok, update to the plan.

    We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer)
    We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses.
    ASBs still not getting changed.

    New version of the changelist:

  • Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10%
  • Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
  • No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps

  • Let us know what you think!


    Please consider making the difference between tech 1 and tech 2 armor repair cap use. Make it more of a trade off with tech 2 being much larger and faster reps but at the cost of being difficult to make cap stable. Make tech 1 armor reps 15% less cap use. Increase tech 2 armor reps 10% and increase armor repair rate by 10% as well.

    Make it a greater trade off give powerful defense to a player willing to run our of cap faster, creates more roles for cap transfer.

    http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

    Freighdee Katt
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #380 - 2013-08-08 01:21:12 UTC
    Iome Ambraelle wrote:
    Why not make AARs work slightly differently than they do today. Under normal operation they would rep an amount appropriate for the module's meta level and consume no paste. When overheated they would take the normal amount of heat damage. However, this damage would be mitigated by consuming the paste that is loaded in the module. The amount of paste consumed could then be modified by the pilot's appropriate skills in overheating and also receive bonuses from ship hulls like T3 cruisers.

    I see two benefits to this approach. First it would make the module more interactive in that the rep boost can be controlled. Under normal tanking situations you don't have to burn paste (@ 15k a pop JITA) just to rep. You can burn the paste when you need the extra boost. Second, I like how it would tie into other skills and ship bonuses. The capacity of the module and the boost amount would probably need to be tweaked. However this change would make the AAR truly unique when compared to their shield cousins.

    It's a good idea. It was suggested way back when AAR first came into the game. But CCP dropped it on the floor without comment. It also was suggested (by me, maybe others) in the Reasonable Things thread, but it did not make the cut to the 99 things list.

    EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?