These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Armor / shield rig concept discussion for Inferno

First post
Author
Karah Serrigan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#181 - 2012-04-23 22:19:05 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Reducing speed by mere 10-15% is killing? lol

Back in 2005 and early 2006 they trippled HP. Now that was a kill. Active tanks became very niche precisely since then. Oh, wait, b00ns didn't even play back then, so what can they know...

Still, just a simple fact: my Prophecy had 2k armour HP when I first bought it. Nowadays it's over 6k.

Oh yeah? Did you also fly it against hordes of 200-1000 drake fleets? Did it have as much damage as an oracle or tornado? Were BS as popular back then as they are now? No? But what do i know ~.~
H0RR0R P0WNZSH0W VACUUM500
Amamake Thunderpussy
#182 - 2012-04-23 22:21:04 UTC
Is this like a massive troll or something?
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#183 - 2012-04-23 22:27:22 UTC
Karah Serrigan wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Reducing speed by mere 10-15% is killing? lol

Back in 2005 and early 2006 they trippled HP. Now that was a kill. Active tanks became very niche precisely since then. Oh, wait, b00ns didn't even play back then, so what can they know...

Still, just a simple fact: my Prophecy had 2k armour HP when I first bought it. Nowadays it's over 6k.

Oh yeah? Did you also fly it against hordes of 200-1000 drake fleets? Did it have as much damage as an oracle or tornado? Were BS as popular back then as they are now? No? But what do i know ~.~

Suggesting EHP values should somehow reflect degree of retardization is counter-productive by definition. Blobtards can form an entity of 2k units the other day, so what?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Rajji Jones
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#184 - 2012-04-23 22:34:38 UTC
This is insanity. There is a reason active tanking will never work for large gang pvp. As soon as you are in a situation where you don't have time to get off 5 or 6 rep cycles, you would get more ehp out of buffer mods than your reppers will give you.

In large gang pvp primaries fall fast.

The only way to make active tanking viable in these situations would be to buff it so heavily that active tank ships would be indestructible in small gang pvp... It would be like noob ships with logi support fighting it out.

Plus, if you are going to fit a repper, in a large gang fitting remote reppers and spider tanking gives the gang way more ehp than local reppers could.

I think this is just a fact of the nature of the game that needs to be accepted. Local reps only work in situations where you take damage slowly enough to get a lot of rep cycles off.... 1 v 1, small gangs, and pve.

All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#185 - 2012-04-23 22:37:07 UTC
Rajji Jones wrote:
All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past.

Just like The Great Nano fix, right? Cool

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Xython
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#186 - 2012-04-23 22:49:37 UTC
Rajji Jones wrote:
All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past.


Fast + Heavy Hitting + Defensive. Pick two?

Shade Millith
xHELLonEARTHx
Simple Farmers
#187 - 2012-04-23 22:55:33 UTC
Stupid change.

1) Caldari are already natively the slowest faction, and even with armor slowing them down, a lot of other factions are still faster, and we're now even slower?

2) Doesn't make any sense story wise, as shields don't increase mass or weight.

3) Increased sig was a great way to balance fast/shield ships. They're fast, but easier to hit. Actually meant that the pilot had to do evasive maneuvers to get to their target.

4) Active tanking is still almost completely useless, doesn't change anything.

I'm not for this massive, uncalled for nano nerf, at all. Nanos these days are fine, they're speedy, but not too fast and can be dealt with easily.

Stop homogenizing your game for your misguided ideas.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#188 - 2012-04-23 22:55:58 UTC
The goal is not to make active tanking blob proof, goal is to balance armor vs shield and active tank vs buffer tank. Right now, unless your ship is bonused or very fast, you don't have any advantage with an active tank in regards to the drawbacks. Active tank should be better in small scale engagement ; right now, active tank is only good on bonused hull, and even then, you often see them buffer tanked. Do you realized that a lot of people prefer to get rid of one of their bonus for a buffer ?

By the way, a blob going 20% slower will still be a blob, and that will not change anything to blob. Only people crying are minmatar/angel pilots which will be less winmatar (not by so much by the way).

The change may not be perfect, but it's a perfect start.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#189 - 2012-04-23 23:01:51 UTC
Xython wrote:
Rajji Jones wrote:
All this change is going to do is make fast heavy hitting ships a thing of the past.


Fast + Heavy Hitting + Defensive. Pick two?



You're ******* dumb. Go look at the EHP of your average nano cruiser. And their DPS. Notice how they have ~20-25k ehp and do less dps than a Drake outside 10km?
Powers Sa
#190 - 2012-04-23 23:05:32 UTC
As someone who solo roams ~on an alt~ I already active shield tank. I have yet to master active armor tanking, because finding the right fits for my current piloting skills and my character skills are a work in progress.

1.) Blaster ferox's and Solo Cyclones are awesome. F the haters. Everyone who solo roams finds these at some point.
2.) I hear brutixes are the logic step for active armor tanking. I'm going to give it a try this weekend.
3.) The shieldcane/welpcane really ruins most active tank situations. If you get more than one of them, you're done.

If you think active tanking is broken, please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FdO7pjMkY
I use the ferox fit, and the rokh fit on my alt, and they absolutely rule. I've refined an autocannon Maelstrom (you'll see a similar one at the end), and cyclone as a minmatar version. If you need those fits, dig through the killmails.

They work. They are VERY vulnerable to neuts. CCP Please don't mess with neuts. The solo roamer is always vulnerable, promoting 3-5man gangs by letting them do their own thing is fun.

I would listen to the hatchery guys though, they seem to like their 15-20man nano roaming gangs..

No Troll: Goons don't only fly in 3x250man fleets. A lot of us like to do covert hotdrops, gate camps, small-medium gang roams. 5-15man is our current thing outside of fleet fights. The other day, I teamed up with some FA friends and convo'ed two bait ships for Dirt Nap Squad and asked them to hotdrop a 20man assault frigate fleet on us to see if we could kill them in our 6 hurricanes. We ended up dying, but it was fun as hell. No one was active tanked. Please don't immediately, categorically dismiss a point of view just because you think we blob 24x7.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#191 - 2012-04-23 23:05:35 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
The goal is not to make active tanking blob proof, goal is to balance armor vs shield and active tank vs buffer tank. Right now, unless your ship is bonused or very fast, you don't have any advantage with an active tank in regards to the drawbacks. Active tank should be better in small scale engagement ; right now, active tank is only good on bonused hull, and even then, you often see them buffer tanked. Do you realized that a lot of people prefer to get rid of one of their bonus for a buffer ?

By the way, a blob going 20% slower will still be a blob, and that will not change anything to blob. Only people crying are minmatar/angel pilots which will be less winmatar (not by so much by the way).

The change may not be perfect, but it's a perfect start.


Except that active tanking will still be utter garbage, so really you're not "rebalancing tanking" at all. Nor are you penalizing large shield tanking ships, since they're already slow bricks, and a 20% reduction in their speed isn't going to change how they're used on the battlefield. All you're doing is nerfing nano cruisers / frigs.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#192 - 2012-04-23 23:07:12 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno

It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking

Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing.
First off, both active tanking and propulsion modules consume a lot of cap, thus I don't see how the speed + active model could be properly implemented.

Active tanking in pvp is very rare, it only really happens in 1 vs 1 brawling, and in such a situation it is only helpful if the active tank system is over-sized for the ship (think medium shield booster on a frigate). In which case the tanking system is going to take up a lot of slots and consume a lot of cap, leaving little or nothing for propulsion systems. CCP could make active tanking modules more powerful but there will still be a limit beyond which the only viable type of active tanking is logistics.


Quote:

  • Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction ri
  • Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost ri
  • As mentioned before by others: All forms of tanking heavily benefit from resistance.Thus any resistance rigs penalties should not be focused upon one type of tanking or simply should not have any penalties.

    If CCP really want to fix tanking in EVE Online then: Make sure that tanking rigs and modules don't interfere with tanking or any faction concepts. For example no speed reduction for use of armor plates (instead go for acceleration and agility penalties)

    Rynnik
    Evasion Gaming
    The Ancients.
    #193 - 2012-04-23 23:07:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Rynnik
    CCP, have you thought about just biting the bullet and completely removing or trivializing rig penalities. Power creep is always a problem but I think it may be reasonable to consider a few of the other ideas thrown out here or previously considered. (I didn't read every previous post but) Some options could include and are not be limited to:

    - Scrapping penalities completely (least desirable? don't dumb things down but it is an option).
    - Make them all fitting related penalities.
    - Make them all 'secondary stats' penalities like sensor strength, locking range, scan resolution, cargo space, number of lockable targets, warp speed, shield stats for armour or armour stats for shield (amount or resists or whatever).

    Speed, DPS, sig radius, agility, capacitor, armour penalizing armour or shield penalizing shield, are the stats that need to be 'hyper' balanced at the ship level in my opinion and should be left off the respective rig 'penalty' lists.
    Protector X
    The Xziles
    #194 - 2012-04-23 23:14:20 UTC
    I got an idea, how about instead of messing with ships and modules we just add more skills!!!!

    No im being serious, think about it, just add more skills we can train, skills on top of skills.

    I know alot of skills have secondary tiers, but what about adding a third tier?

    Theres a general concesus that active tanking is just bad in most pvp situations, and I totally agree, but heres my remedy, Add active tanking SKILLS, and i think the active tanking problem would then be solved.

    My philosophy is more ships + more skills = more better. Big smile

    Smodab Ongalot
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #195 - 2012-04-23 23:32:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Smodab Ongalot
    Powers Sa wrote:
    As someone who solo roams ~on an alt~ I already active shield tank. I have yet to master active armor tanking, because finding the right fits for my current piloting skills and my character skills are a work in progress.

    1.) Blaster ferox's and Solo Cyclones are awesome. F the haters. Everyone who solo roams finds these at some point.
    2.) I hear brutixes are the logic step for active armor tanking. I'm going to give it a try this weekend.
    3.) The shieldcane/welpcane really ruins most active tank situations. If you get more than one of them, you're done.

    If you think active tanking is broken, please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FdO7pjMkY
    I use the ferox fit, and the rokh fit on my alt, and they absolutely rule. I've refined an autocannon Maelstrom (you'll see a similar one at the end), and cyclone as a minmatar version. If you need those fits, dig through the killmails.

    They work. They are VERY vulnerable to neuts. CCP Please don't mess with neuts. The solo roamer is always vulnerable, promoting 3-5man gangs by letting them do their own thing is fun.

    I would listen to the hatchery guys though, they seem to like their 15-20man nano roaming gangs..

    No Troll: Goons don't only fly in 3x250man fleets. A lot of us like to do covert hotdrops, gate camps, small-medium gang roams. 5-15man is our current thing outside of fleet fights. The other day, I teamed up with some FA friends and convo'ed two bait ships for Dirt Nap Squad and asked them to hotdrop a 20man assault frigate fleet on us to see if we could kill them in our 6 hurricanes. We ended up dying, but it was fun as hell. No one was active tanked. Please don't immediately, categorically dismiss a point of view just because you think we blob 24x7.



    Looks like goonswarm recruitment is slipping. This guy is much too articulate and well spoken to be a goon.


    I'm fine with changes to "encourage" active tanking, but in general I can't accept anything that would give a speed penalty for shields. It just doesn't make sense on any level.

    I feel a need to follow "space physics", so penalties should be:

    for any shield mod with a penalty: increased sig radius

    for and armor mod with a penalty: increased mass/increased inertia

    why?

    shields are energy based. So, locking onto something putting out more GJ (or whatever) of shields should be easier.

    armor is mass based. So... they should add mass...

    amiright?
    Kelleris
    WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
    WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
    #196 - 2012-04-23 23:43:42 UTC
    CCP, While I appreciate your willingness to upset the status quo...


    WHY?

    There were real differences in how shield and armor ships behaved. This would remove some of those differences.
    There is a multitude of other changes you could make to this game to make it better or even just more interesting. This one was an exceedingly poor choice.

    Fix POSs and we can talk about goofing around with shield tanking module penalties... seriously...
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #197 - 2012-04-23 23:57:02 UTC
    If you try and fit up an armor-tanked Vigilant, you end up with a ship that does under 400 dps, tanks under 400 dps, and can't run its modules for more than 3.5 minutes. Oh and it's slow as butte (600m/s). Oh and it has an 11k ehp armor buffer.

    So lets recap!

    Skirmishable? No

    Cap stable? No

    Does enough DPS to kill your average Drake in under 10 minutes? Nope.jpg

    Can tank more DPS than your average Drake can put out? Nope.png

    Has a big buffer? Nope.svg



    Yeah, active tanking is a swell idea. I, too, enjoy flying ships like this that can't tank more than one opponent (if that), have no buffer, and can't dictate range when your average nullsec "small gang" fight lasts for about 1-2 minutes before one side dogpiles 50 dudes in battlecruisers on top of the other. Don't forget that they're entirely dependent on cap booster charges (that they can't hold more than 12 of) to fight. That's really handy too.

    Literally the only time an active tanking ship can possibly have an advantage over a buffer tanked ship (assuming the opposing force is competent and you're not in your own / neutral space) is in a 1v1. In a 1v1, an active tank ship is actually a lot better than a passively tanked one. So, for killing a lone ratter something like an active-repping Sacrilege might be pretty strong (assuming it does enough DPS to break the ratter's tank). In literally every other situation, a nano setup with a light buffer tank is superior, since it means you can engage things while maintaining some ability to get out when your target lights a cyno or a giant gang appears one system out. You give up some of your ability to 1v1 (anyone who's tried to gank ratters in a nano HAC knows how fragile they are) in exchange for the ability to dictate ranges and the ability to fight without needing constant resupplies of booster charges.
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #198 - 2012-04-24 00:21:51 UTC
    On the shield side, things are even better! For a mere 1.6 billion isk (not including the price of a full set of low-grade Crystal implants) you, too, could have your very own Cynabal that deals and tanks ~330 dps. Includes a whopping 8k ehp shield buffer!

    All you need to do is stack pirate implants, billion-isk deadspace shield boosters, and faction cap boosters + charges onto your 250m isk pirate hull and you, too, can have a ship that's useless for fighting more than one ship at a time. Although, in fairness, at least the Cynabal will still do over 600m/s!
    Ganthrithor
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #199 - 2012-04-24 00:23:11 UTC
    Basically what I'm saying is that active tanking doesn't work acceptably at all on ships smaller than BCs except in very specific scenarios and using ridiculously expensive fits and boosting alts.
    Atomic Option
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #200 - 2012-04-24 01:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Atomic Option
    I'm not sure what this proposed change is intended to fix. It's easy to see what it breaks, but what does that fix?

    The biggest problems with the current frigate line up (as well as many other sub BC size ships) are:
    1. Vast speed differences among a ship class that is required to speed tank if anything bigger is on the field anywhere in range. Speed reductions would make all shield rigs basically unusable on smaller ships.
    2. Many T1 frigates lack the mid and low slots to ever be competitive with other things that can be trained for in your first week of EVE.

    The solution shouldn't be too hard:
    Even out / increase slot counts a bit. All frigates should be able to fit a prop mod and a point plus at least one slot for something else like web, damage or tank. Buff the speed of frigates which are required to armor tank by slots or bonuses to have enough base speed to be able to cope.


    On a technical note, I'm curious how your ship coding works. Ideally you'd have a system where ship values for each ship attribute from speed to slots are all together in a single, easily modifiable table somewhere that's easy to change in 5 minutes--values could still be brought in at compile time if you need hard coding for performance, but other MMOs are able to make balance tweaks a lot more often than CCP has been.

    I understand if some or all ship attributes were hard coded somewhere during early eve development, but if so, separating mechanics from attributes to make balance changes easy should be on the top of the development priority list. Instead of expecting to hash out the right balance in forum sperg, and then implement it and be done, we should be able to change things let players try them and then easily tweak them again after a week or a month if they don't turn out how we'd hoped.



    All that said, I appreciate that you are taking the time to ask for feedback from the players. CCP has had a great turn around since last year in the amount and quality of communication and I hope it continues in the future!
    ~AO