These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#101 - 2013-08-01 17:50:51 UTC
Gustav Mannfred wrote:
why not boosting the deadspace boosters too?

after the changes, a t2 shieldbooster gives 690 hp, and a pith c-type large booster gives 660. means, a t2 booster is ways better.

you should buff deadspace/officerboosters too.


Psssssssst, you're being bad.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Marc McIntyre Crendraven
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#102 - 2013-08-01 17:54:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Marc McIntyre Crendraven
The quote by CCP fozzie has the bit about deadspace modules not being increased under the shield boosters, does this mean that only deadspace/officer SHIELD boosters don'ts get treatment or does this apply to ARMOR reps as well?

( he said reps but said it next to shields, did he mean boosters?)

Eat Lead!!! Err....Antimatter...whatever!
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#103 - 2013-08-01 18:02:32 UTC
Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:
CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell?


Yeah, because game design and balancing is nearly the same thing as writing software.

Maroon.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
marVLs
#104 - 2013-08-01 18:10:03 UTC
Nice change Cool
Anthar Thebess
#105 - 2013-08-01 18:20:38 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


  • Increase the rep 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%

    • Let us know what you think!


    Why are you doing this?
    This will be next hit in the nullsec.

    With the changes to the exploration (magneto sites) now t2 probers rule in null - last time people where doing this in t3/bs/BC.
    Less juicy targets, and in case of income from this sites now is 1/4 less.
    What you are proposing will hit next type of nullsec income.

    Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

    Show your support to The Cause!
    Luc Chastot
    #106 - 2013-08-01 18:24:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Luc Chastot
    This is an improvement for local reping, but in no way closes the gap between armor and shield, meaning the latter will still be better than the former.

    Edit: Are you doing something to fix this issue, Fozzie?

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

    Omnathious Deninard
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #107 - 2013-08-01 18:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
    As an example of the cap problem with armor repping; the Hyperion, a ship designed to armor rep, recharges 20Gj/s with perfect skills. A large armor repairer II consumes 35Gj/s with level 5 skills.
    That is a -15Gj/s cap usage, hardly sustained.
    It would be nice for a single armor repairer to 0 out the recharge rate ad not go massive negative.

    Edit: Bad smart phone math, fix.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
    Sol Trader
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #108 - 2013-08-01 18:34:23 UTC
    and here i was under the impression ccp was capable of more complex balancing attempts. Like only 5% bonus to deadspace and 15% to everything else. Apparantly they are locked in to the number 15% though.
    Marc McIntyre Crendraven
    Brave Empire Inc.
    Brave United
    #109 - 2013-08-01 18:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Marc McIntyre Crendraven
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi

    For Odyssey 1.1. we're going to be taking a swing at aspects of our warfare link features, as well as rebalancing command ships. We believe that the package of changes we've put together will be a significant step forward for the game, but it's definitely not the end of iteration on these features.

    For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.

    What we will be changing for 1.1 is:
  • The strength of the bonuses provided by Warfare links
  • The way that skills, ship bonuses and implants affect the strength of warfare bonuses
  • The specific types of bonuses provided by the Information Warfare mindlink and Information Wafare: Sensor Integrity warfare link
  • The method by which mindlink implants can be obtained
  • The fitting requirements of warfare link modules, and their use within starbase forcefields
  • Many aspects of Command Ship balance, including what bonuses they receive to warfare link strength
  • The base rep amount of ALL ARMOR REPAIRERS and MOST shield boosters.

    • looks like deadspace/officer ARMOR REPS will get boosted 15%, only deadspace/officers SHIELD BOOSTERS don't seem to be getting the treatment, which is good. They are already mega powerful as it is, maybe 5% boost for them would be ok though

    Eat Lead!!! Err....Antimatter...whatever!
    Klingon Admiral
    Carcinisation
    #110 - 2013-08-01 18:40:38 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b]

    • Let us know what you think!


    Won't that make T2 shield boosters BETTER than the lowquality deadspace variants?

    T2 XLSB now: 600 HP/cycle
    Pith C-Type XLSB: 660 HP/cycle
    T2 XLSB Ody1.1: 690 HP/cycle

    All that while using the same amount of cap, and I honestly don't see cycle time as that important for XLSB.
    Vincent Athena
    Photosynth
    #111 - 2013-08-01 18:43:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:
    CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell?


    You don't want me rewriting the server code.

    In before Ms. Scatterbrain says "CCP should take the money spent on you and use it to pay someone who can rewrite server code".

    I think her name says it all.

    Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

    Frozen fanfiction
    Tobias Hareka
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #112 - 2013-08-01 18:47:41 UTC
    Sol Trader wrote:
    and here i was under the impression ccp was capable of more complex balancing attempts. Like only 5% bonus to deadspace and 15% to everything else. Apparantly they are locked in to the number 15% though.


    Compare Gist X-Type X-Large Booster with Gist X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier to Centus X-type Large Armor Repairer. Do you see the difference?
    EMU EVIL
    Scythe Corporation
    #113 - 2013-08-01 18:59:30 UTC
    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    Maximus Andendare wrote:
    Cpt Boomstick wrote:
    Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly.
    Well, you're correct that shield > armor tanking active, but this is due to the XLASBs being fittable on Medium ships as well as the free cap use, combined with the fact that AARs can only be fit in a single slot. Also, don't forget that in addition to the XLASB, shields also have an option for a shield boost amplifier that makes the booster that much more effective.

    I wish, given the fact that in order to repair armor more, you just need to add armor repairers, there'd be another option, especially since AARs are limited. I'd love to see something like a "refrigeration unit" (lowslot module) that would allow a much longer time on overheating on armor repairers. It wouldn't compete in the rig slots with nano pumps or nanobot accelerators and it'd allow a cap-free way of getting more armor repaired, albeit under heat.



    Ships are generally strapped for lowslots as it is.

    It would have to be a medium, even then dunno if people would sacrifice a slot just for that.


    I agree, For a shield tanking ship you can use low slots for shield recharger relays or power diagnostic systems; although rarely used and quite niche, i believe that these modules warrant some minor ability for an armor tanking ship to improve it's tank with mid-slots. a refrigeration unit sounds like a good idea. Why not a generic refrigeration unit midslot that reduces all heat damage similiar to the Strategic cruiser heat damage per level reduction bonuses? It would be another very niche module like the shield relay seen mostly in active tanking armor frigates if they can spare a midslot.
    Urkhan Law
    Black Rebel Rifter Club
    The Devil's Tattoo
    #114 - 2013-08-01 18:59:41 UTC
    At the frigate level I'll gladly take that buff for my Rifter but ... Incursus, LOL?
    Phoenix Jones
    Small-Arms Fire
    #115 - 2013-08-01 19:15:28 UTC
    Urkhan Law wrote:
    At the frigate level I'll gladly take that buff for my Rifter but ... Incursus, LOL?


    That little frig may never be killable again...

    I agree with not buffing the deadspace/officer stuff. it is kind of.. well. op anyway.

    This is mostly complaints from people who try to sell these things for some odd 500 million a module.

    Yaay!!!!
    Jureth22
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #116 - 2013-08-01 19:21:12 UTC
    one thing i dont understand,why not increase the shield boost bonus of deadspace/officer?
    Aimee Maken
    Atasaki Holdings
    #117 - 2013-08-01 19:24:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aimee Maken
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

  • Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b]



    • Does that mean that a T2 XLSB will get 690 boost / 400 GJ , meaning that many of the lower end pith boosters becomes there only for the easier fitting (pith C XL gets 660 boost / 400 GJ), while the gist line becomes more or less about cap and efficiency (the x XL is 672 / 204 GJ)?

    I can understand the non inclusion of the ASB given their power levels, but why is deadspace getting hit as well?
    Sergeant Acht Scultz
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #118 - 2013-08-01 19:25:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
    Phoenix Jones wrote:
    Urkhan Law wrote:
    At the frigate level I'll gladly take that buff for my Rifter but ... Incursus, LOL?


    That little frig may never be killable again...

    I agree with not buffing the deadspace/officer stuff. it is kind of.. well. op anyway.

    This is mostly complaints from people who try to sell these things for some odd 500 million a module.



    Faction shield boosters deserve a bit of buff, Tech II a huge buff, but Deadspace ones are already way OP.

    Then as someone just says above, fit an X-type SB best quality with x-type shield boost amp and take a look at the numbers.
    Try doing same thing with armor reps no matter which one then tell us what happens?

    ANd actually don't think incursus will be op in any form or shape, eve is not about 1v1 but players vs other players, solo pvp is not and is not an argument of balance in an MMO daring to call it self an MMO.

    removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
    Sal Landry
    School of Applied Knowledge
    Caldari State
    #119 - 2013-08-01 19:29:10 UTC
    Kagura Nikon wrote:

    THe main reason why ASB are superior is not the raw repair they ahve. Its that the normal shield boosters almost mandate you to bring a Cap injector, therefore another mid slot.

    Although that's true, the fact that ASB's boost more than officer modules certainly doesn't hurt.
    Goldensaver
    Maraque Enterprises
    Just let it happen
    #120 - 2013-08-01 19:44:33 UTC
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Michael Harari wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:

    Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not.


    This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG


    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 would like to note that while this is true at the large and XL levels, it does not apply at the small and medium levels. They do come close, but not quite better in rep/second amount.

    So I might suggest not completely skipping over DG modules, but taking it on a case by case basis.