These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Balancing Feedback: Hybrid Turrets

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#441 - 2011-11-10 13:45:16 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
Keen Fallsword wrote:
I was chatting with many players almost everybody can agree with stats switch between blasters and AC. Even as Gal and Matar pilot I can agree that AC is overpowered.



I don't.

blaster ships need to be more mobile. damage projection on blasters needs to be done by the ships themselves. if the ships need to be more mobile than matari ships, then so be it.

as for the AC problem, only nerf I would allow would be the falloff bonus on ships that use it, which are, in fact, the really troublesome ones (vagabond, cynabal, machariel). IF said nerf happened on the time when the TE boosts happened, at the very least the forum rage wouldn't have been as high as it is now.


Well Grimpak

I dont mind any changes to balance this broken game. So yes maybe your idea is OK. We both can agree that recent changes are just "cosmetics" right ?

I think that re balancing should be open for some time even when final patch is UP. Hybrids should be marked as Work in Progress. And i think that One Designer is not enough to make this job done. Problem is very complex.
The worst for CCP is that players are really angry coz players invest lots of time in SP and now they are left alone. Im wonder how many ppl resign from playing Eve online coz their's favorite race was so broken..
Wolfman122
Last Huzzah
#442 - 2011-11-10 13:47:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolfman122
I've got a slightly crazy idea for adding an unique advantage to all types of hybrids that other weapons don't have, but is still reasonably balanced. Its something that won't fix the closing to range issue of blasters, but it would make it more interesting and might make people willing to fly more hybrid ships.

* Resistance Penetration *

Let me explain in more detail. When hybrid turrets deal damage to target ships, any resistances above a certain number are ignored. So for example, if this value was set at 70%, any ship that had resistances above 70% would get treated as having 70% when a hybrid weapon hit this ship. This value could change according to the meta level of the gun, and some ships could get bonuses. This could be applied to shields, armour or both.

This would bring in several interesting features to using hybrids. 1) Same effectiveness against T1 hulls in general. 2) More effective versus T2/T3 hulls. 3) Same effectiveness versus just buffer tanks. 4) More effective verses buffer/resist and active tanks.

People would be like "Oh look there is a HAC fleet, lets get in our hybrid ships now". It might make an interesting niche for using hybrid ships over the others without being massively powerful. Not sure how it would change PvE given that I have no idea what resists rats have. Perhaps it would make hybrids more useful in Incursions? It might also be used as the anti-logi niche?

Just an idea to get the creative juices flowing rather than the same-old-same-old ideas. And yes, I know its a crazy idea.
Keen Fallsword
Skyway Patrol
#443 - 2011-11-10 13:52:02 UTC
Wolfman122 wrote:
I've got a slightly crazy idea for adding an unique advantage to all types of hybrids that other weapons don't have, but is still reasonably balanced. Its something that won't fix the closing to range issue of blasters, but it would make it more interesting and might make people willing to fly more hybrid ships.


If is not fixing is doing nothing.
Interesting ? Yeah maybe but we want blaster and rails to be fixed and balanced not invented.
Wolfman122
Last Huzzah
#444 - 2011-11-10 14:05:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolfman122
Keen Fallsword wrote:

If is not fixing is doing nothing.
Interesting ? Yeah maybe but we want blaster and rails to be fixed and balanced not invented.


I said it wouldn't fix the range issue of blasters. Its definitely not doing nothing. I would argue that giving hybrids (both blasters and rails) something additional will actually "fix" them whether the range issue is sorted or not. If I have a reason to fly a ship knowing that it can be kited I will, I won't just stop using them. I will fly in the knowledge that there is a good reason to use them. Currently there is no reason to fly blasters because they have no clear advantage that outweighs the disadvantages.

(Also if more people fly hybrid ships because of a unique advantage there are less mini ships kiting us to worry about!)
thoth rothschild
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#445 - 2011-11-10 14:05:58 UTC  |  Edited by: thoth rothschild
Let's get back to Aretha Franklin with her shotgun and Usain Bolt and his M16


What can Aretha do to survive this fight ?

- Hide in fog (if not toxic)
- Get another Weapon (a walther ppk is not an option!)
- Get Inside a jeep with a mashine gun
- lay out traps for Mr Bolt (remind that this is not allowed inside a shopping mall!)

Giving Aretha the ability to spin faster and removing the need to reload her shotgun won't help ^^


P.S.: Watching Bolt orbiting a spinning Aretha looks pretty silly!
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#446 - 2011-11-10 14:11:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Grimpak
Keen Fallsword wrote:

Well Grimpak

I dont mind any changes to balance this broken game. So yes maybe your idea is OK. We both can agree that recent changes are just "cosmetics" right ?

I think that re balancing should be open for some time even when final patch is UP. Hybrids should be marked as Work in Progress. And i think that One Designer is not enough to make this job done. Problem is very complex.
The worst for CCP is that players are really angry coz players invest lots of time in SP and now they are left alone. Im wonder how many ppl resign from playing Eve online coz their's favorite race was so broken..



test server changes on both blaster hulls and blaster themselves are just half-assed attempts in all honesty. with the new changes, blaster ships can still be outmaneuvered, and if they even manage to catch the target, they still don't do enough damage, altho granted that they might be able to apply said damage better, and with the recent 5% increase, the difference between the nearest competition will increase, altho barely.

granted that there might be some aprehension from CCP's part to not boost blaster hulls too much, but these tiny changes simply served to make the glaring issues less glaring.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Elrianmk2
#447 - 2011-11-10 14:41:58 UTC
Surely a better idea is to give the Blaster boats a bonus to damping? thus forcing their opponents into their ranges? granted you would have to use scripts to make it work properly but it fits with the Gallente up close preferred method of fighting. I know it does work against FoF but i cant recall the last time i came across one of those used in PvP.

While this nicely assists the likelihood of a Gallente Blaster boat PvP fleet shipping out it does naf all for PvE'ers. I used to fly a Drake in level 4's as it outperforms my Mega... doesn't matter how you look at it that just isn't right! Currently out in 0.0, flying rifters and skill up for minnie command ships, Gal command ships, friggen useless atm since the Nerfbat **** a while ago. If i come back to high sec again, I will probably still not fly Gallente ships in level 4's, My mega has sat unused in months, we have the only ships where you can target one of our main weapon platforms (drones) to reduce the DPS you are taking. disco setups etc.if i cannot project damage in PvE, people will not fly that ship as much as one that will, (Minnie and Caldari), this means there will be more Minnie / Caldari specced pilots, which means wont have fleets with guys using those ships or weapon types, and then you end up in a loop, no one uses it cause it is perceived to be bad, which means no one trains for it, which means no one uses it...

Sometimes "Meh" is an acceptable response.
sq0
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#448 - 2011-11-10 15:53:00 UTC
Don't know why devs don't see this :

TODAY: blasters maybe win if the fight against AC starts <10km ( maybe and how many are those situactions? ) If it starts in greater range AC is allways winner because it will get to the point that AC can shoot and BS don't, and it wont change from that point. So AC will win vs BS with 99999dps and 99999999HP without loosing 1 hp if fight starts 30 or whatever km and more. (This isn't about exact numbers but the concept as whole) This is EVIDENTLY WRONG

BLASTERSHIPS SHOULD BE FASTEST.
balance it something like:

CLOSEST ENGAGEMENT RANGE OF COMBAT START: blasters win, ofc they have bigger dmg, you can just run away in normal circumstances, - it is their territory

SOME MIDDLE GROUND: sometimes wins blasters sometimes other weapon systems. Sometimes the damage put on blaster ship until it gets in range will be enought to win fight sometimes it won't be and once blaster gets in range even damaged, it manages to kill the other one. Here victory will be decided by fitting, pilot skills, exact situation etc.

LONGER ENGAGEMENT RANGE OF COMBAT START: Here is the damage dealt to blastership until it gets in range too much for blastership to compensate with higher dmg, and longer range weaponsystem wins. Or blastship gets completely destroyed on the way.

(what are those ranges only devs kno
WHATS WRONG WITH THAT ???? ANYONE ????
Gods Coldblood
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#449 - 2011-11-10 16:02:07 UTC
I neeeeeed moooooooooore POWER captain

My Youtube Channel: Here
Lekgoa
Free State Project
#450 - 2011-11-10 16:09:23 UTC
When something Caldari lands on grid, I heat prop mod and approach.
When something Amarr lands on grid, I heat prop mod and orbit.
When something Minmatar lands on grid, I spam warp, hope he lands in scram range next time, and repeat as needed.

My point is that in order for a Gallente pilot to fight a Minmatar one, he needs a lot of luck and/or patience. I'm hoping that by the end of this rebalancing I'll have a better weapon than luck in my arsenal. I don't think blaster and ac stats should be swapped, as they're both semi-balanced against the other weapon systems. I don't agree with the sensor damp idea, as Gallente ships rarely have extra mids for ewar. Blaster boats need: the ability to close range, the ability to deal some damage while approaching, and the ability to really out-muscle the other ship once they're in range. Mobility and T2 ammo are simple and effective fixes that could easily be included in this expansion. You gave us tracking and fast reload, now let us use them.
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#451 - 2011-11-10 16:15:52 UTC
Elrianmk2 wrote:
Surely a better idea is to give the Blaster boats a bonus to damping? thus forcing their opponents into their ranges? granted you would have to use scripts to make it work properly but it fits with the Gallente up close preferred method of fighting.


This post points out another message to you devs. It says:

"Gallente! A race so messed up people don't know that it already has a bonus to using Damps!""
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#452 - 2011-11-10 16:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Well if the Ammo is getting reworked I'd like something like this: (as I've already posted before)

Antimatter (Short rng Thermal) : Remains as is High Thermal low Kinetic damage
Lead (Short rng Kinetic) : As AM with hi kinetic low Thermal

Two short range hi damage ammo types focusing on one side of the two damage types. Something like a 75% - 25% split between the two. This would at least allow a choice of High Kinetic or Thermal damage.


Uranium (Mid rng Hi RoF) : +50% Rof -50% dmg -20% optimal -20% falloff
Plutonium (Mid rng Hi tracking) : -20% optimal & falloff +10% tracking very low dmg

Two specialised short to medium ranged ammo types. One high RoF low damage and one high tracking low damage. Both would have uses depending on Hull bonuses

Thorium (Hi falloff low optimal) : +50% Falloff
Iridium (Hi optimal Low falloff) : +50% Optimal

Two Medium ranged ammo types specialising in falloff (Gallente) or optimal (Caldari).


Tungsten (Sniper/Alpha low RoF): +75% dmg -75% Rof +40% optimal & falloff +75% Cap use
Iron (Extreme long range) : +60% Optimal & fall off

Two long ranged ammo types. One extreme range for the beyond 150km sniping (hope that CCP increases warp to ranges to 250km though) and one specialised "Sniper" ammo. The "Sniper" ammo is designed to give Railgun boats that "Alpha" that is required in most sniper fleets however it won't outshine artillery volley damage. For example:

Sniper Muninn Volley: approx 1700 & Range:105 + 36 KM
Sniper Deimos (with new Tungsten) Volley: approx 1300 & Range: 91 + 37 KM
Sniper Eagle (with new Tungsten) Volley: approx 1100 & Range: 130 + 20 KM

If energy turrets got a similar ammo make over they would also compete in the alpha strike role. However, Artillery will still hold the crown.
Elrianmk2
#453 - 2011-11-10 16:31:44 UTC
Lekgoa, i understand your concerns about the limited amount of ewar fitting, as my post suggested, this was about another approach to looking at the problem, An additional midslot on blaster-boats and the damp bonus would help dictate range.

My main point of my post though was that no matter what we do, for PvE, you know the making money part to do PVPing? Hybrids are firggen useless.

Sometimes "Meh" is an acceptable response.
Nemesor
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#454 - 2011-11-10 16:33:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nemesor
Nemesor sits there watching Aretha Franklin flail about pumping ineffective round after ineffective round at the fast little man circling her distantly as he plugs her chubby form with rifle fire.

"This reminds me of something. Hmmm." , he says musing as he eats popcorn.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#455 - 2011-11-10 17:03:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Denmark
*EDIT - I CORRECTED THE MEDIUM SR STATS AS I ACCIDENTALLY USED L AMMO*

Stats taken primarily from the database and added the changes.
These stats are for 1 gun (T1 AM/MF/EMP) with maxed skills for dps and no skills added for range and tracking (sry)

Tachyon Beam Laser II - 40,99 dps (26,4+20 km) tracking 0,0139
Mega Beam Laser II - 37,95 dps (24+16 km) tracking 0,0153
New 425mm Railgun II - 36,01 dps (28,8+24 km) tracking 0,0101
New 350mm Railgun II - 34,25 dps (21,6+20 km) tracking 0,0123
Dual Heavy Beam Laser II - 31,63 dps (21+12 km) tracking 0,0175
New Dual 250mm Railgun II - 32,11 dps (14,4+12 km) tracking 0,0184
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 30,25 dps (24+35 km) tracking 0,0090
1200mm Howitzer Artillery II - 27,50 dps (19,3+35 km) tracking 0,0113

New Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 53,13 dps (3,6+10 km) tracking 0,0520
New Ion Blaster Cannon II - 49,81 dps (3+8 km) tracking 0,0552
New Electron Blaster Cannon II - 46,49 dps (2,4+6 km) tracking 0,0600
Mega Pulse Laser II - 43,37 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0338
800mm rep. artillery II - 38,96 dps (2,4+19 km) tracking 0,0432
Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II - 37,48 dps (10,8+6 km) tracking 0,0375
Dual 650mm rep. artillery II - 37,10 dps (2,2+18 km) tracking 0,0497
Dual 425mm Autocannon II - 34,79 dps (1,9+16 km) tracking 0,0571

Heavy Beam Laser II - 28,46 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0330
Quad light Beam Laser II - 27,11 dps (4,8+1 km) tracking 0,0810
New 250mm Railgun II - 27,01 dps (14,4+12 km) tracking 0,0242
New 200mm Railgun II - 25,69 dps (10,8+10 km) tracking 0,0294
New Dual 150mm Railgun II - 24,08 dps (7,2+6 km) tracking 0,0441
Focused Medium Beam Laser II - 23,72 dps (10,5+6 km) tracking 0,0420
720mm Howitzer Artillery II - 22,69 dps (12+18 km) tracking 0,0220
650mm Howitzer Artillery II - 20,63 dps (9,7+18 km) tracking 0,0275

New Heavy Neutron Blaster II - 39,85 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1200
New Heavy Ion Blaster II - 37,36 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1320
New Heavy Electron Blaster II - 34,87 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1440
Heavy Pulse Laser II - 32,53 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0813
425mm Autocannon II - 29,22 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1056
Focused Dual Pulse Laser II - 28,11 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0900
220mm Vulcan Autocannon II - 27,83 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1214
Dual 180mm Autocannon II - 26,09 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1397

When comparing these don't forget that most minmatar ships have a ROF bonus equal to 33% more damage when most other weapon systems only receive a DAMAGE bonus giving 25% more damage,
And tbh except for a few perks and kinks here and there this doesn't look too bad.

What remains is the speed balance between Gallente and Minmatar ships need adressed as well as the caldari optimal bonuses should be replaced with damage bonus while the gallente should have a ROF bonus or obtain their increased damage from having more guns than caldari...

Pinky

PS. Please sort out the ammunition as well. It really deserves it while we're looking at hybrids already...
Sir Fury
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#456 - 2011-11-10 17:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Sir Fury
Blasters need a much larger damage buff to make up for their tiny range.
I also support the idea that Gallente hulls (blaster platforms) should be the faster, but less agile than Minmatar. I think it works better than simply increasing the range of blasters.

But I can understand why CCP Devs may have an issue with making Gallente hulls faster than Minmatar. After all, one of the Racial aspects of Minmatar is speed & range tanking. & in order to achieve this, they are generally much faster, agile & have smaller signature radii than the other races. Some specialized Hulls have speed bonuses.
(The Minmatar Command & T3's have bonuses to skirmish links, which also include Rapid Deployment - though this doesn't have to mean anything)

Making Gallente the fastest race, although in my view, makes most sense to solve the issue of getting in range for Blaster platforms, may upset the lore aspects & the lead to changing the bonuses of many Minmatar hulls to be consistent with this philosophy.

So what else can we do, if we still want to keep Minmatar the fastest race (base speeds atleast)? The only other solution I see is a Propulsion Module Bonus ( for Afterburners & MWDs) to all Gallente (& probably Caldari) blaster ships. In this way, it won't upset the historic Minmatar Racial attributes, but still allow Gallente Blaster platforms to be effectively faster than Minmatar ships, dependent on Cap. Agility is also penalized with Propulsion modules on, so in effect, we do end up with Gallente ships being faster but less agile than Minmatar.


p.s. The idea of a special time dependent Speed boost ( kind of like a "nitro") on top of the usual propulsion modules has merit, but would involve additional modules & game mechanics which could complicate things, hence probably not advisable.
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#457 - 2011-11-10 17:32:15 UTC
I spoke to a EvE friend today who suggested this:

Why not give Gallente (or certain Gallente ships) an Overload bonus, so they can overload for longer.

This gives them the ability to use the MWD overloaded
ALLOWING Gallente ships to get in range without breaking the game mechanics
AND limiting their usage of speed in combat so they are not permanently fast but have burst speed instead of permanent speed i.e.. don't break Minmitar
AND therefore not having to make them the same speed as Minmitar to get inside of blaster range
AND... it gives Hybrid Blasters the extra DPS when in Range that everyone claims they need - again - limiting it's use so it is fair

If you then give Caldari Hybrid ships the extra tank they need we can finally call the game balanced.

Hurray!

Stick a fork in it. I'm done.



"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#458 - 2011-11-10 17:34:42 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:

New Heavy Neutron Blaster II - 79,70 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1200
New Heavy Ion Blaster II - 74,71 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1320
New Heavy Electron Blaster II - 69,73 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1440
Heavy Pulse Laser II - 65,06 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0813
425mm Autocannon II - 58,44 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1056
Focused Dual Pulse Laser II - 56,22 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0900
220mm Vulcan Autocannon II - 55,66 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1214
Dual 180mm Autocannon II - 52,18 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1397


Medium close-range guns doing more damage then their battleship equivalents? Identical range and falloff? I don't think you've got that right.
Bhaal Chinnian
#459 - 2011-11-10 17:41:16 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Stats taken primarily from the database and added the changes.
These stats are for 1 gun (T1 AM/MF/EMP) with maxed skills for dps and no skills added for range and tracking (sry)

Tachyon Beam Laser II - 40,99 dps (26,4+20 km) tracking 0,0139
Mega Beam Laser II - 37,95 dps (24+16 km) tracking 0,0153
New 425mm Railgun II - 36,01 dps (28,8+24 km) tracking 0,0101
New 350mm Railgun II - 34,25 dps (21,6+20 km) tracking 0,0123
Dual Heavy Beam Laser II - 31,63 dps (21+12 km) tracking 0,0175
New Dual 250mm Railgun II - 32,11 dps (14,4+12 km) tracking 0,0184
1400mm Howitzer Artillery II - 30,25 dps (24+35 km) tracking 0,0090
1200mm Howitzer Artillery II - 27,50 dps (19,3+35 km) tracking 0,0113

New Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 53,13 dps (3,6+10 km) tracking 0,0520
New Ion Blaster Cannon II - 49,81 dps (3+8 km) tracking 0,0552
New Electron Blaster Cannon II - 46,49 dps (2,4+6 km) tracking 0,0600
Mega Pulse Laser II - 43,37 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0338
800mm rep. artillery II - 38,96 dps (2,4+19 km) tracking 0,0432
Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II - 37,48 dps (10,8+6 km) tracking 0,0375
Dual 650mm rep. artillery II - 37,10 dps (2,2+18 km) tracking 0,0497
Dual 425mm Autocannon II - 34,79 dps (1,9+16 km) tracking 0,0571

Heavy Beam Laser II - 28,46 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0330
Quad light Beam Laser II - 27,11 dps (4,8+1 km) tracking 0,0810
New 250mm Railgun II - 27,01 dps (14,4+12 km) tracking 0,0242
New 200mm Railgun II - 25,69 dps (10,8+10 km) tracking 0,0294
New Dual 150mm Railgun II - 24,08 dps (7,2+6 km) tracking 0,0441
Focused Medium Beam Laser II - 23,72 dps (10,5+6 km) tracking 0,0420
720mm Howitzer Artillery II - 22,69 dps (12+18 km) tracking 0,0220
650mm Howitzer Artillery II - 20,63 dps (9,7+18 km) tracking 0,0275

New Heavy Neutron Blaster II - 79,70 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1200
New Heavy Ion Blaster II - 74,71 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1320
New Heavy Electron Blaster II - 69,73 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1440
Heavy Pulse Laser II - 65,06 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0813
425mm Autocannon II - 58,44 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1056
Focused Dual Pulse Laser II - 56,22 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,0900
220mm Vulcan Autocannon II - 55,66 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1214
Dual 180mm Autocannon II - 52,18 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1397

When comparing these don't forget that most minmatar ships have a ROF bonus equal to 33% more damage when most other weapon systems only receive a DAMAGE bonus giving 25% more damage,
And tbh except for a few perks and kinks here and there this doesn't look too bad.

What remains is the speed balance between Gallente and Minmatar ships need adressed as well as the caldari optimal bonuses should be replaced with damage bonus while the gallente should have a ROF bonus or obtain their increased damage from having more guns than caldari...

Pinky

PS. Please sort out the ammunition as well. It really deserves it while we're looking at hybrids already...




These stats are wrong:
220mm Vulcan Autocannon II - 55,66 dps (12+8 km) tracking 0,1214<--wtf nice troll
vs.
New Neutron Blaster Cannon II - 53,13 dps (3,6+10 km) tracking 0,0520

'A Good Plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed next week'-- George Patton
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#460 - 2011-11-10 17:44:37 UTC
Nemesor wrote:
My out of the box idea of the day. Keep an open mind.

From day one there is one attribute that all Gallente ships have that is superior to all other races. This was obviously a racial trait of some sort whose purpose has been lost in the sands of time.

Gallente ships have more structure points than any other race. A lot more in most cases. The Amarr generally have second most, followed by the Matari then the Caldari. The only exception to my knowledge is the Tech 3 ships where the Amarr suddenly have more structure. This is obviously the design team forgetting about the old racial trait of Gallente.

If there were a few more low slot modules released... like an Advanced damage control II. Say this increased the hull resists by 25 percent and gave a hull HP Boost of 50 percent... increasing the efficiency of reinforced bulkheads (WOW WHO EVER USES THAT MODULE!) even increasing the efficiency of bulkhead and remote bulkhead reppers (Yes they exist in the game, I swear). Switch the active armor bonus's on existing gallente ships over to Structure resist bonuses. Switch MWD bonuses to structure amount bonuses.
Now you have a Gallente ship that is beefy, is unaffected by heavy armor plates, and able to fit a nice passive tank with a couple of decent modules. Can other races fit these things? Sure why not. They can't fit them as well as Gallente can. They won't have ships with bonuses to fitting them and they won't have as much structure points.

REAL MEN HULL TANK. (only it wouldn't be a joke this time.)



Nemesor wrote:
Magosian wrote:
[quote=Torei Dutalis]Big big problem with this. Gallente pilots would be forefitting the boosted resists to armor/shields on t2/t3 ships unless this change also included additional resists were also applied to hull, and I don't see that happening.

Still, the idea is not totally lost on me. Isn't it strange that Amarr/Minmatar not only have the best turrets, but their t2/t3 ships also are best-suited for omni-tanking? Hrm....


There would be tweaks and such made if this ever was implemented. Why couldn't T2 resists be buffed on Hull a little? An additional benefit is that it would open up another option for the logistics ships. The Gallente logistics being remote hull repairers.

This is just a basic proposal. Nothing specific. Obviously it would require a lot of adjustments.


Sorry, but this is just a terrible idea. Currently you have 4 races, 2 shield and 2 armor tanking. If you want to buff hull tanking to a true fully grown tanking mechanic for something other than just lulz you'd need to adjust SO MUCH. All of that is much more work and has much more devastating side effects than balancing blasters.

The above mentioned remote-hull-repairing logi idea is a perfect example. Currently there are 4 logistics, 1 per race. Consequently you have 2 for shield and 2 for armor. Then you'd be left with just 1 armor. You forget (or never knew in the first place) that the logi ships for armor (or shild) actually fill different roles. There is a self-sufficient ship (Oneiros / Scimitar) which is cap stable and can also provide tracking links, and there is the counterpart which is not generally cap stable by itself (Guardian / Basilisk) but also doesn't get a tracking link bonus. The later can provide (with logistics V) cap to fleet members who need it, as it only needs one "cap buddy". So depending on fleet size, composition and intended targets there are quire good reasons to use a specific ship.
You would totally screw this equilibrium when switching Oneiros to hull tanking. Also, Remote Hull Repairers barely repair enough to heal up a ship over time, let alone to use it as an actual active tank...

Please stop it, this breaks so much stuff and creates a balancing nightmare (3 tanking mechanics instead of 2, which is already hard enough to keep fair). Just stop Cry