These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#261 - 2012-04-24 18:12:05 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
feedback, which quite shows it is not ready yet. Don't get us wrong, active versus passive tanking needs to be looked at and there will be changes when we come to it, we just don't want to rush the process when better solutions may exist.


Agreed, there is definitely some gameplay enhancements that can be made with tweaking rigs but rather than doing a major overhaul in time for inferno its something thats better approached as well thought out incremental changes released with the smaller patches.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#262 - 2012-04-24 18:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops.


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes.


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.

That's extremely dissapointing.

Still, you do realize the disparity between armour and shield rigs penalties, right? You still need to address that.

By the way - the most of the playerbase do use passive tank rigs. Did you really expect them to approve these changes? Really? Ugh


That's not about favoring any kind of player category - that's about being sure of what we are doing before committing to it Blink.

In this case, we weren't certain about the concept at all, thus we asked for feedback, which quite shows it is not ready yet. Don't get us wrong, active versus passive tanking needs to be looked at and there will be changes when we come to it, we just don't want to rush the process when better solutions may exist.

kk then, but mark my words: fixing passive tank will never be popular among the majority of players.

And the problem lies exactly within it, since active tank is fine and can not be 'improved' without completely ruining all the fun of small-scale PvP.

I guess you've seen that already while studying feedback on Drake ;) Messing with popular stuff is never easy.

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

Yanna Karr
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#263 - 2012-04-24 18:26:52 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops.


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes.


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.


Thank you for listening to user feedback and not rushing the changes.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#264 - 2012-04-24 18:32:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops.


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes.


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.

That's extremely dissapointing.

Still, you do realize the disparity between armour and shield rigs penalties, right? You still need to address that.

By the way - most of the playerbase do use passive tank rigs. Did you really expect them to approve these changes? Really? Ugh That's like seeking approval of Titan fix among Titan (ab)users.


Yes, CDFE rigs are literally as OP as Titans.

If anything CCP should be taking armor rigs and giving THEM a different penalty. Currently there are a whole horde of frigates (and even some cruisers) that I would armor tank if doing so were a practical option. When you want to make a Wolf that can get in close and dodge big bullets while repping against drone damage, the fact that trying to improve your DPS tanked comes at the cost of taking more damage due to gimping your speed, it makes the armor rigs totally useless. I still fly armor repping frigates occasionally, but when I do I usually fit astronautics rigs or scan res rigs because armor ones are just so terrible.

Your comment that "active tank is fine" just seems to imply you don't fly cruisers or frigates. I agree, active tanking works well on battleships, and decently on some BCs, but it's incredibly bad on 99% of cruisers/frigates.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#265 - 2012-04-24 18:33:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Shin Dari
Fon Revedhort wrote:

That's extremely dissapointing.

Still, you do realize the disparity between armour and shield rigs penalties, right? You still need to address that.

By the way - most of the playerbase do use passive tank rigs. Did you really expect them to approve these changes? Really? Ugh That's like seeking approval of Titan fix among Titan (ab)users.
I have to say that what you are saying is complete nonsense.

Local active tanking is already good for solo fights, group active tanking (logistics) is good for groups.



Edit: as far for the so called disparity, shield and armor are balanced.
equincu ocha
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#266 - 2012-04-24 18:36:47 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops.


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes.


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.

That's extremely dissapointing.

Still, you do realize the disparity between armour and shield rigs penalties, right? You still need to address that.

By the way - the most of the playerbase do use passive tank rigs. Did you really expect them to approve these changes? Really? Ugh


That's not about favoring any kind of player category - that's about being sure of what we are doing before committing to it Blink.

In this case, we weren't certain about the concept at all, thus we asked for feedback, which quite shows it is not ready yet. Don't get us wrong, active versus passive tanking needs to be looked at and there will be changes when we come to it, we just don't want to rush the process when better solutions may exist.

It would have been nice if this would have at least made it to the test server before it got scrapped, then again I don't know how much trouble that would have been for you guys.
I'm just tired of 'when in doubt... shield tank it, it's not like there are any drawbacks' , it would have been nice to have a different option.

Baby seal walked into a club

Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#267 - 2012-04-24 18:41:21 UTC
equincu ocha wrote:

I'm just tired of 'when in doubt... shield tank it, it's not like there are any drawbacks' , it would have been nice to have a different option.
Have you ever shield tanked? Shield tanks have less EHP than armor tanks and often get hit harder thanks to the sig bloom. Also it really messes with tackle and EW.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#268 - 2012-04-24 19:15:22 UTC
MalVortex wrote:


Or you can nerf shield rig, then they won't be the only rigs with no significant penalty
Some people actually fly armor ships, with armor rigs or weapon rigs, which do have significant drawback and for which the associate skill is not a joke. By the way, CCC are only used in pve

When one thing is superior to all the others, it's not necessarily *all the others* which need a review, and the one thing which is balanced

And while getting rid of rigs penalties would even the things out, I would miss the idea of tradeoff you make with rigs. But you are right on one point : it's sad that some rig penalties gimp the ship in a way which make the ship barely usable if using them, and drone rigs are a good example of this, though that could be fixed

Problem of shield rigs is that the sig drawback is useless because mostly unsignificant because of it's low importance in everything : sig *help* you avoid turret damage, and reduce a bit missiles damage, but even 15% is not really a tradeoff because speed is *way* better for damage mitigation, and shield allow you to also fit speed mod. By the way, good thing you mention the speed rigs : why no one fit them on their shield nano ship ? My answer is because of the shield rig drawback being unsignificant. Infact, I would love to see shield rigs to have an electronic drawback, because that would make them in line with the opposition armor-speed and electronic-shield. That only work for armor right now

But, there is also the problem of active tank versus buffer. The proposed solution would have had "fixed" the two problems in one go. As stated, speed is life in small scale engagement ; if active tank should be prefered for small scale engagements, active tank should have a speed advantage over buffer. Shield already have it's advantage with speed rigs which don't penalize it

As for the "why a drawback ?" I would answer first : why not ? Drawbacks make us sure a ship do not become too powerfull in one area while not taking some vulnerabilities somewhere else to exploit. Shield rigs do not respect this, but they are almost the only ones. Changing the damage formula could solve this, but the problem of active tank vs buffer would remain

PS : Wow argument was a bit of troll, and I shouldn't have used it, but you bite it while don't bothering when it was used three time to cry against the proposed changes ; but forget it. ;-)

PPS : I'm a bit sad that Ytterbium didn't stand against the tears. :-(
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
#269 - 2012-04-24 19:18:03 UTC
What about taking a page from the side effects of the blue pill? You tank more but have the possibility of less overall shields. Give that as a penalty to active shield/ armor rigs. Make the resistance rigs for both shield and armour passive.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2012-04-24 19:23:41 UTC
My proposed solution:
- Armor rigs add mass rather than speed (or lower agility)
- Shield rigs add sig as they do now
- Sig becomes a much bigger factor in the damage calculations (this should also solve big guns blapping small things)
Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#271 - 2012-04-24 20:02:01 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
In this case, we weren't certain about the concept at all, thus we asked for feedback, which quite shows it is not ready yet. Don't get us wrong, active versus passive tanking needs to be looked at and there will be changes when we come to it, we just don't want to rush the process when better solutions may exist.


If that is the baseline you want to work from, then think about the requirements for each, types of situations where each could have advantages over the other, then evaluate what modules make or break that.

Perhaps the way to approach this is to make passive tanking the appropriate style for your kiting/mobile ships, and active tanking for the stationary ones. There are still problems with Amarr/Lasers and active tanking, but at least you are working from a racial ship type that isn't still mostly broken (lol Gallente).

Don't start with just rigs, run the whole gamut. Modules, rigs and ship bonuses all at once. But start with a plan for each of the tanking styles that isn't 1/3 of the equation.

Random thoughts...

What if Active Recharge/Regeneration happened over the cycle of the module, rather than at the beginning or end of the cycle? What if having an armor repair unit fitted provided some passive regeneration to armor (at a very slow rate, like the built in shield regen)?
What if passive tanking modules reduced the repair rate of any active repair (remote or local), and vice versa, and rig drawbacks enhanced these changes?

Tanking should also take into account the "role" of the ship. If it's a hit-and-run ship, it might need bonuses for passive tanking, while a stationary brawler would need bonuses for active tanking. Or, more accurately, a reduction in the drawbacks for using the "appropriate" rigs for the ship's design.




Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#272 - 2012-04-24 20:10:05 UTC
Removing rig penalties is a good idea if rigs themselves are balanced. But when 90% of rigs fitted are just EHP rigs, it's kinda screaming out that they aren't.

Crazy idea - your ship can fit only a single rig from each category. So an armour rig, a laser rig and a cap rig, maybe. Problem - that still leaves everyone choosing trimarks and CCCs. What?
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#273 - 2012-04-24 20:14:37 UTC
I have an idea, how about we stop obsessing over "ship roles" and let ships do multiple things depending on their fits? You know, since that seems to be the whole point of configurable hulls...

CCP should be lookng at buffing active tanking so it's possible on a greater variety of ships (rather than only capitals and BS/BC that are specifically bonused for it). More ships should be able to be fit in more ways. CCP should be focusing on making variety possible, not pigeon-holing more ships into more specific "roles."
Kenshin Tzestu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2012-04-24 20:35:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenshin Tzestu
Nicki O wrote:
if you want to fix active tanking then change the way repairers work or add a new kind of repairer.

proposal:
dont let them cycle for x armor/shield every x seconds but give them a buffer they can repair every x seconds if needed.

for example a repairer with 1000armor buffer every 10 secs. (random numbers)
ship gets alphad for 1000 damage - damage is instantly repaired
ship gets 100 incomming dps - damage is constantly repaired over the 10 secs
ship gets alphad for 1200 damage - 200 damage to the armor, damage is repaired after 10 secs but the buffer is now only 800hp
ship gets 200 incoming dps - buffer is depleted after 5 secs and the rest of the time the ship gets damage. ship gets repaired after 10 secs but has no buffer left for the next 10 secs.


that would be an easy way to balance active vs passive tanking. because you have 3 variables you can easily balance.
passive buffer amount
active buffer amount
active cycle time

obviously active buffer amount < passive buffer amount, but has not to be that much smaller, maybe 70%?
plate with 1000armor vs a repairer with 700armor every 10 secs.

the active buffer would make them more viable in medium/larger fleets because logistics get a chance to lock them and help with reps.



I think that this is a really cool idea, almost like the active repairers are 'stabilizing' the armor or shields.

Depending on the balance, this would also help deal with the problem of alpha one shooting an active tanked ship. Would need to be balanced such that the buffer would disappear when the user runs out of cap etc, with the primary difference between active and passive being that active tanked ships maintain a limited buffer as long as they have cap and passive ships getting a larger buffer that sticks around without any cap.

This is a good idea because it:

1) Fixes the alpha problem that is a major problem of any current active tanking setup.
2) Can be appropriately balanced by changing the amount of passive and active buffers.
3) Might not even require much in the way of coding. Simply take an active rapper and when on, add that amount of armor or shield to the tank, restore that much at the end of every cycle and remove it if the module stops cycling. The primary change here would be that you add a small amount of buffer up front. (So a small armor rapper that repairs 100 damage would add 100 armor and cycle with the same time).

If you wanted to maintain the difference between armor and shield, have active armor tanks use the 'active buffer' solution and allow shield active tanks to continue to use larger than normal shield boosters (as is already done normally now).
Creat Posudol
German Oldies
#275 - 2012-04-24 21:13:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Creat Posudol
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
That's not about favoring any kind of player category - that's about being sure of what we are doing before committing to it Blink.

In this case, we weren't certain about the concept at all, thus we asked for feedback, which quite shows it is not ready yet. Don't get us wrong, active versus passive tanking needs to be looked at and there will be changes when we come to it, we just don't want to rush the process when better solutions may exist.

That still leaves us with the mess that armor tanking is at the moment. In many situations it's just not really an option, as you can no longer move (or at least not fast enough to not die). I don't have anything against differentiating between armor and shield tanking, but having the "brawler-race" (Gallente) pay for having tank by slowing them down is just not working. To quote Sigras a few posts up: "The problem is that in small gang warfare, speed is life."

Either find an alternative for the speed penalty or make the sig penalty actually meaningful (while it isn't irrelevant it's not nearly as bad as the speed hit for armor tanks). A great way would be to revamp the tracking formula to include damage scaling (or something with similar effect). Talk to CCP Greyscale about this or read a great discussion in the Titan Changes-Thread, starting at roughly page 30.

As about having drawbacks or not, rigs are in many ways similar to modules but not quite the same. Their permanent nature is the most obvious difference, it also factors into the fact that they were - as I understand it - intended as tradeoffs. Get more of this, give up a little of that. Problem is that the applications are so vastly different that with the exception of a few niche applications one of 3-4 rigs will be used. More HP is useful in any PVP situation, more HP regeneration (+rep amount or -rep cycle time) is useful for any PVE situation, having more or faster charging cap is even universally good (likewise having more PG). Having specialty rigs like +warp speed is nice, but with few exceptions not worth the drawback or slot, at the very least it doesn't beat getting more HP, regen or a better cap (and that's even a reasonably often used rig, let's not talk about Inverted Signal Field Projectors for example).
All those things need to be put into an actual balance. Some rigs are basically free, yet still not used. EVER. This should say something about the balance of rigs in general. Drawbacks come into play much later, but can also be used to achieve some more balance: drawback amount should be somehow related to how universal the advantage of a rig is. Why again are energy grid rigs without a drawback? I understand that they are extremely universal, and therefore the drawback needs to be equally universal, but I'm sure something can be found, right?

Also, why is salvage tackle an armor rig?

EDIT: Forgot one thing, there is also a pretty huge discrepancy between armor and shield rigs in terms of cost. Large armor resistance rigs are about 12-15 mil, Shield resistance rigs are all below 500k, and that's market price and not material cost (closer to 200k).
Why?
If you look at the material composition, all armor rigs (resistance or other) need Armor Plates as the key ingredient driving the price. Shield rigs are split between Ward Consoles and Malfunctioning Shield Emitter, the latter being required for the resistance rigs. WHO THE HELL DESIGNED THAT? Seriously, please take a good long and extensive look at rigs in general, there are so many problems, it's not even funny...
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#276 - 2012-04-24 21:17:24 UTC
Aww come on, just remove the penalty for armor repping rigs in time for Inferno! Give active repping a nice little boost until you fix the real issues. Big smile
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#277 - 2012-04-24 21:29:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Suggesting to revamp damage formula so that sig matters more is one of the most brilliant acts of pharisaism I've ever seen. Everyone knows that it's unlikely to happen any time soon. It's just too much of a hassle. Besides, doing that for the sake of mere rigs is just plain illogical itself and on top of that may spoil more things that it actually fixes.

CCP just has to come up with a clear vision of what rigs actually are - a mere module or something giving you an edge in your primary attribute at the expense of something secondary. Without adopting such a thought any attempts of fixing things on the fly are just bound to be chaotic and inconsistent.

Those suggesting that armour rigs should reduce shields are acting as die-hard pharisees, too. Who the hell gives a crap about having 10-15% less shields while armour tanking?? Go sacrifice something significant!

I remember Gleam crystals reducing the shields of my Prophecy in like 2 or 3 times (so that I had like 1/3 to 1/2 of the initial value). Guess what? I coudn't care less - and that particular thing was probably the least important of all penalties (others included increased cap usage, reduced tracking and sig bloom).

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

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#278 - 2012-04-24 21:46:01 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops.


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes.


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.



That's cool. Throwing the ideas out there for the dogs to sniff at is fine.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#279 - 2012-04-24 21:49:32 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Removing rig penalties is a good idea if rigs themselves are balanced. But when 90% of rigs fitted are just EHP rigs, it's kinda screaming out that they aren't.

Crazy idea - your ship can fit only a single rig from each category. So an armour rig, a laser rig and a cap rig, maybe. Problem - that still leaves everyone choosing trimarks and CCCs. What?



This is a perfectly obvious-in-hindsight, straight out excellent idea.

Get rid of the calibration stat altogether and implement this. It fixes so many problems with rigs that it's just not funny (including triple-trimark II'd supercaps)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#280 - 2012-04-24 23:20:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Get rid of the calibration stat altogether and implement this. It fixes so many problems with rigs that it's just not funny (including triple-trimark II'd supercaps)


Whats broken with that?

You can't really make changes to rigs like that anyhow it will end up with so many people with broken ships or ships that no longer function as intended - also the logistics for someone living outside of highsec redoing all their ship fits would be immense.