These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ian666
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2012-04-24 08:43:13 UTC
ccp: people dont use active tanking in pvp for various reasons, for example because modules like MWD or Nos/Neuts usable almost only in pvp situation, eats tons of cap, which normally is used for local reps / shield boosters.
Elenor Kharne
ergo optima
#222 - 2012-04-24 08:58:25 UTC
Vedje wrote:
Active tank is reserved for ratting, in short: for fending off slow and stabile incoming dps [...] To everyone with common sense this will indicate that active tank becomes irrelevant when it comes to pvp.


Not true. In small-scale active rep is quite useful and it's not rarely used; In larger fleets it's senseless to active tank as you stated already. And the challenge for active reps is timing them right (be it neuts, alpha) which is why they are fun Cool

Increasing powergrid of rep modules is not a good idea. Most fittings are already pretty tight. I would like to see no penalty at all for active reps (nanos already have a hidden penalty -> cap usage). Sig bloom is just awful for them, although the incoming damage would not be that much. This sure needs further investigation on what would be best.

Making buffered tanked ships (shield&armor) slower makes sense to me. I like that active armor tanks would be faster. For gallente, they need to get close/get tackle asap and considering they are active tanked and close range, it's not optimal to have reduced speeds.

Btw. there are effects which slows things down without increasing mass but with a stronger electromagnetic field (Lenz's law).
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#223 - 2012-04-24 09:19:36 UTC
how about reading the many many posts in Features and Ideas and implementing the best PLAYER derived ideas, not forcing your own badly formed ones through the system.

I can safely say that 90% of the player base do not want this idea of yours

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#224 - 2012-04-24 09:20:41 UTC
Kenshin Tzestu wrote:

A great change and a good sign for the direction of the game.

I hope CCP has the balls to ignore all the whiners
who are content with the unbalanced and boring status quo and can't understand how to adapt to positive change. MMO's seem to have a lot of whiners, the amount of tears in this thread alone is pretty epic.

Can't help quoting this for truth.

Screw morons! Twisted

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

M1NeR
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
#225 - 2012-04-24 09:22:45 UTC
>>>In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking

In general, I seriously dislike this idea. Especially about minmatar. Speed was nerfed in several different ways already. Not again please.

Shield passive tanking is so good because it's easy&effective. Just like good old ak47. Active tanking for mobile vagastyle ships? Cap problems. Use cap booster? -1 med slot, less tank, not enough charges. If you really want it that way you'll have to look over cap booster size charges (-90% size eh?) or rebalance shield booster cap use etcetc. Like some people already noted this question is really complex so if you want to promote active tanking for minnies you'll have to compensate in cap balance for them. And compensate ALOT.
Sigras
Conglomo
#226 - 2012-04-24 09:40:34 UTC
What I read in this thread is a lot of whining, and complaining, but not a lot of suggesting . . . what CCP wanted with this thread (im assuming) is not simply a commentary on what we think of these changes, but suggestions; those changes are what they came up with, what can you come up with.

I think everyone agrees that active tanking in PvP is broken, the question is what direction do you want to go with it? I think the problems with active tanking are un-fixable without massive changes to the way the mechanics work (then again it my just take someone more creative than I)

The main problem is that an active tank is effectively invulnerable to X ships but dies almost instantly to X + 1 ships. If you buff active tanks all you're really doing is changing how many "X" is.

Can we please have some suggestions on how to fix active tanking PvP instead of completely unhelpful posts like "THIS CHANGE IS THE SUXXXXORS!!!!!!!1111oneoneone"

The really tough thing to do is to balance PvP and PvE because the easy answer is to make active tanking cost less CPU/PG than plates/extenders and cost less cap, but 1, this makes no sense, and 2 this would really drastically change PvE

IMHO a good start would be to change all the gallente/minmatar bonuses from 7.5% bonus to repair to "5% bonus to repair effects" meaning that it boosts RR coming into the ship too . . . This would at least make the ships not totally suck while you figure out what to do.

What are your thoughts on fixing active tanking in PvP?
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#227 - 2012-04-24 09:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
The thing is, as something working pretty much in proper PvP only, active tanks could use additional things to meet the requirements of harsh environment, such as increased sensor strength to resist abusive jamming.

That wasn't me who initially proposed the idea of giving reps (and shield boosters) a sensor strength bonus, but I, for one, quite liked it. Improved resistance to damping should also be there.

Blobtards never face these problems, and on the other hand in their case the bonuses are ulikely to be worth swapping something 'regular' for a mere repper - they can already fit ECCMs and sensor boosters instead.

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

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
#228 - 2012-04-24 10:18:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mecinia Lua
ate my post :(
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
#229 - 2012-04-24 10:21:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Mecinia Lua
We appreciate you wanting to consult the player base.

Active tanking is not used as much in pvp due to the high capacitor costs. Unless you change those costs no other changes will change that. The primary consumer of this cap is the personal repair mods. Cut capacitor use to 75% of current use and then test that. Unless you can get the active tanks to run more stably with mwds at least 3-5 minutes you won't see much change.

Your proposals here would make Tengus and Drakes more powerful than they are today. As lower speed means getting hit by more missiles. Thus you'd have to rebalance them again if you carried out what you plan. In fact since speed is an essential element to staying alive if you go to the changes you propose the ship will get hit more often, as such you will need a higher base hp in order for the ship to be viable in combat.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#230 - 2012-04-24 10:29:54 UTC
Quote:
Active tanking is not used as much in pvp due to the high capacitor costs. Unless you change those costs no other changes will change that. The primary consumer of this cap is the personal repair mods. Cut capacitor use to 75% of current use and then test that. Unless you can get the active tanks to run more stably with mwds at least 3-5 minutes you won't see much change.


Capacitor Boosters, when loaded with the appropriate Capacitor Booster Charges give you moar capacitor with the click of a butan.

On frigates, small NOS is enough to give you capacitor to cycle a small repper- even under neuting.

I've flown and won with active armor tanks in PvP (both on bonused and unbonused hulls), and while it certainly does not scale up to fleet combats, it's amazing when solo or in small gangs. And this is the preferred PvP variety for many players in EVE.

Also, I don't see how a fixed buffer tank can be seen as scaling better with fleet sizes- it requires RR to scale, which is, believe it or not, remote active tanking.

.

Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#231 - 2012-04-24 11:09:45 UTC
I've flown for a while with active tanking, and the real issues I've encoutnerd are:

1. Overreliance on Cap Booster charges, and overreliance on Cap in general. This means that most of the time, you are sacrificing a medium slot for a booster, a highslot for a nosferatu, and all the cargo space for charges. I've actually suggested that Active Armor tankign needing ammunition, like Nanite Repair paste, that would be used isntead of Cap. Afterall, your armour isn't magically beign repaired out of nowhere.

2. Tight fittings. Most of the fits for a Active tank need to sacrifice a lot of things. In my case, its DPS.

3. Reliance on high resists. I've found that the active tanking shines on better resisted hull, which is to be expected. In many cases, stuffign a resist rig is more helpful than an active tanking rig.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#232 - 2012-04-24 11:30:21 UTC
You people need to realize that 'overreliance' on cap, fitting etc. are GOOD things. These are called CONSEQUENCES. You decide to tank and thus have to PAY for that.

We don't need to remove (or lessen) those natural drawbacks of active tanks, but should introduce proper ones for passive tanking instead. The changes proposed are aimed to do precisely that.

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

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#233 - 2012-04-24 12:00:35 UTC
Throw in a cap battery when active tanking.

It'll make things interesting when someone tries to Nos you Blink

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Kblackjack54
Mercurialis Inc.
The Bastion
#234 - 2012-04-24 12:34:42 UTC
I guess you need to do something to justify the money your grabbing for a non existant job.

If your going to make changes to EVE, make changes that improve the game by fixing stuff you already broke, but this time fix it properly and not just patch it, don't just sit there changing stuff just because you can write code.

Better idea would be for CCP to take this bunch round the back and club em to death before they go much further.
Morgan North
Dark-Rising
Wrecking Machine.
#235 - 2012-04-24 12:36:08 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
You people need to realize that 'overreliance' on cap, fitting etc. are GOOD things. These are called CONSEQUENCES. You decide to tank and thus have to PAY for that.

We don't need to remove (or lessen) those natural drawbacks of active tanks, but should introduce proper ones for passive tanking instead. The changes proposed are aimed to do precisely that.



There dont' seem to be consequences to fitting a doubl medium energy neutralizr on hurricanes. Tell me where they have cap issues...

The thing is:

The "Consequences" could come from just having apropriatly-sized ammonition.

Also I'm talking about from a Gallente pilot point of view. The combination of Weapons using Cap + Active rep using cap means you stop being able to rep pretty quickly, unless you cap inject. But then we have... One less medium slot, which in my cas means one less web. (From 1 to 0).
Jaxley
The Tuskers
#236 - 2012-04-24 12:51:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaxley
The same drawbacks on buffer and active tanking rigs may level the playing field a bit, but it kind of seems like the easy way out; "Want balance? Make it behave the same." What?

However, the impact of agility on PvP seems overlooked. Have you considered playing around with that?

Agility is actually more important than top speed for a Gallente blaster boat trying to get close. If I can reach my top speed slightly quicker, I may have a better chance to outmaneuver a ship that has a higher top speed than mine.

"Heavy armor is more agile than heavy shield" may be awkward to explain, but essentially this could be a good way to balance shield kiters and armor brawlers.
Less stale than downright equalizing rigs and bringing top speeds closer together at least.

"Shield = faster and more agile for a tad less EHP" doesn't really work in any case imho, even if they were slowed down a bit by rigs.


TL;DR - Agility, may wanna look into it.
Luba Cibre
Global Song Setup
#237 - 2012-04-24 13:19:52 UTC
Roime wrote:
The simplest solution is:

- Shield extender rigs add shield HP and reduce armour HP
- Shield resist rigs increase shield resists and reduce armor resists
- Shield boost rigs eat Grid (or increase booster module cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)

- Trimarks add armour HP and reduce shield HP
- Armour resists rigs increase armour resists and reduce shield resists
- Armour rep rigs eat CPU (or increase repper cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)

- Passive shield regeneration is removed (has no armour counterpart, not sure if this is needed due to niche role of PST)

Increase should always be slightly more than reduction. Essentially you just take from your secondary tank and add it to your primary tank, playing on your ship's strenghts.

This removes the whole problem of balancing the current secondary penalties, leaving only balancing of the ships themselves.


(Edited for better active tank penalties)

I really like this idea.

"Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise." 

GRIEV3R
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#238 - 2012-04-24 13:27:22 UTC
Luba Cibre wrote:
Roime wrote:
The simplest solution is:

- Shield extender rigs add shield HP and reduce armour HP
- Shield resist rigs increase shield resists and reduce armor resists
- Shield boost rigs eat Grid (or increase booster module cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)

- Trimarks add armour HP and reduce shield HP
- Armour resists rigs increase armour resists and reduce shield resists
- Armour rep rigs eat CPU (or increase repper cap usage, balance by decreasing booster charge size)

- Passive shield regeneration is removed (has no armour counterpart, not sure if this is needed due to niche role of PST)

Increase should always be slightly more than reduction. Essentially you just take from your secondary tank and add it to your primary tank, playing on your ship's strenghts.

This removes the whole problem of balancing the current secondary penalties, leaving only balancing of the ships themselves.


(Edited for better active tank penalties)

I really like this idea.


+1 for this idea. Makes a lot of sense.


Additionally, I support any new ideas that will make Gallente more viable. Cool
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#239 - 2012-04-24 13:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Active tanking does scale - Self-repping for small gangs, Remote Reps for large gangs.

If Gallente and Minmatar are the true active tanking races then their bonuses should be applied to self and remote repping. These ships should be the ones favored for remote reps, not the Caldari/Amarr ships with high resistances. Caldari/Amarr should have high buffer and low reps. Gallente/Minmatar should have low buffer and high reps.

Proposal:
Repping Rigs Changes - Affect both self and RR repping (received).

Reduce the amount of energy needed to run self reppers. Self-repping with hybrids requires too many cap boosters (uses too many midslots) to help them effectively tank.

Final Note: Increasing resists helps both buffer and active tanking and blurs the line between buffer and reps. Perhaps Caldari/Amarr bonus ought to be pure bonus to HP (% increase in shield/armor HP) and Gallente/Caldari bonus ought to be to repair amount.
Butzewutze
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#240 - 2012-04-24 13:28:45 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


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.


Hi Ytterbium,

Speedpenalties NEVER boost smallscalewarfare. I really wonder why this look like a good change to you. Makes me feel you never were into smallscale what brings me to the next question: Why did they give you this task?

It doesnt matter what you / ccp wants. You make the things we want or we stop paying you alltogether. Ofc. you are free to do what "you" want then.

With this change to rigs, you are hurting smallscalewarfare "again", at least for minmatar / nanopilots. I dont think thats what you want to have.

Activetanking doesnt have a place in current 0.0 warfare and your jokepatch wont change anything there. But it will remove nanopilots and force them to use activetanks or forget about rigs alltogether = it hurts lowsec / smallscale pvp.