These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sigras
Conglomo
#301 - 2012-04-25 15:35:04 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Honestly, I think the first step is to put a stacking penalty on everything that increases the base amount of HP, that includes:

Trimark Armor Pumps
Core Defense Field Extenders

The way it stands, if you have 10,000 armor HP and you put one trimark on you get 11,500 which is fine, 15% more, but if you put two of them on you end up with 13,225 or 32.25% more than you started with, and a third one pushes you to 15,208.75 or 52% more armor than you began with. This is like getting compound interest at the bank, it gets crazy fast because the later ones add a percentage to the already increased percentage of armor by the previous one.

At the very least they should stack nerf against eachother so each subsequent trimark has less effect, also IMHO they should combine their effect so if you have one fitted it gives you a 15% increase, two fitted give you a 28.05% increase (because of the stacking penalty) and three fitted give you a 36.6% increase.

Also, why are they 50 calibration? they are, by an order of magnitude, the most effective and desirable rigs, why is their calibration cost super low? shouldnt the better rigs cost more calibration?


So now, not only have Gallente ships the slowest speed, they also have way less hp buffer to spend on the hour and a half it takes to catch up with anything with shields.

IMO this doesnt matter at all, everyone's tank would be smaller, not just the gallente.

Also, the Gallente ships will NEVER catch shield ships flown properly, so who cares if you last 30 seconds while never catching your enemy, its the exact same as lasting 30 minutes while never catching your enemy, you still do 0 damage

you could make trimarks give you 1000% extra armor and that would not matter at all because you will still never catch your opponent so you will still never win.
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Guiding Hand Social Club
#302 - 2012-04-25 15:56:40 UTC
Caldari ships are already the slowest around. This would make the buffer variants slower still. I am not sure this is a good thing.
Sigras
Conglomo
#303 - 2012-04-25 16:06:55 UTC
^^ im assuming you mean other than the armor buffer fits which have to fit a 1600 plate or two and take a massive hit to speed and agility there?

Clearly something must be done to the extender/trimark rigs because they are by an order of magnitude the most popular rigs with the third being possibly the CCC because of caps/PvE
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#304 - 2012-04-25 16:14:54 UTC
Sigras wrote:

Also, the Gallente ships will NEVER catch shield ships flown properly, so who cares if you last 30 seconds while never catching your enemy, its the exact same as lasting 30 minutes while never catching your enemy, you still do 0 damage


Not entirely true - prot and lachesis/arazu have scram range bonuses, prot and diemos (and a couple of others) have 10% falloff bonus which means blasters with null and a couple of TEs can hit out to 40+km fairly effectively. There are setups that can counter kiting shield ships fairly well if your on the ball and fly a decent setup. Even armor tanked the vigilant is quite quick for instance.

Granted its fairly trivial for nano shield tanked drakes or canes to hold say a megathron at range, warp when taking damage and keep it pointed with long range points if caught in space with it unable to do anything but die... but you can avoid these situations generally with a bit of experience.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#305 - 2012-04-25 16:16:39 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
As I explained, shield rigs have *no* drawback, because sig is unsignificant. This, combined to the absence of difference between active tank and passive tank rigs make shield better than armor for skirmish, and buffer better than active tank in most situations.

Hence, we need to remove a drawback from active armor tank, and to add one for shield buffer. Job done
Shield buffer work well in skirmishes. But armor buffer is far more effective at BS and capital scale. If CCP adds the sig penalty and an EHP reduction to armor to bring it at the same level as shield, you will cry like a baby.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#306 - 2012-04-25 17:30:42 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Camios wrote:

That said, I think that having active shield tanking on Angel ships could really be interesting. Of course, we need fueled shield boosters for that, otherwise it is not feasible.



Why not ? Because angel pilots would have to learn to manage their cap ?

I heard a long time ago when I was learning EVE that "cap is life". Of course it's easier when your cap is only used for your prop, but that's a bit against this statement I think. Minmatar, angel and most caldari ships don't have any hard pressure on their cap, so why crying when a suggestion suggest to use it ?


Spoken like someone who's literally never played this game ever.

Have you even flown a Minmatar / Caldari ship? Yeah, they don't burn as much cap. They also have the shittiest capacitors in the game-- you can practically cap yourself out running active hardeners much less a shield booster.
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club
#307 - 2012-04-25 18:39:05 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops.


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.


Shocked What happend to CCP

Proposing a change, discussing it and then scrapping it, who are you and what happened to the Old CCP ?

The Old CCP, that put broken things on Sisi 2 days before the patch,
then said to themselves "Oh this is Terrible!" and then released it regardlessly.


IMO, the proposed changes to active tanking would likely have had a less significant impact then most people here claim.
Even the Passive tanking Nerf would have bin survivable for most setups.
But definitely no ideal solution.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#308 - 2012-04-25 18:39:38 UTC
Stupid devs, trying to make Winmatar less Win.
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#309 - 2012-04-25 18:40:57 UTC
Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:
Caldari ships are already the slowest around. This would make the buffer variants slower still. I am not sure this is a good thing.

I know, a meaningful trade off?

**** that!

The Entire goddamn basis of Minmatar and Caldari design is "LOL Trade offs are for fuckwits too dumb to fly our ships".
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#310 - 2012-04-25 19:07:31 UTC
So you want to fix Active tanking by breaking something else eh? Thank god you aren't a doctor because if I had a broken finger you would most likely want to cut off my foot to fix it.

If you want to fix Active tanking then fix it don't try to pigeon hole the races in to these crazy roles with poorly thought out schemes and label it an active tank fix.

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#311 - 2012-04-25 19:11:02 UTC
[quote=Ganthrithor][quote=Bouh Revetoile

Spoken like someone who's literally never played this game ever

Have you even flown a Minmatar / Caldari ship? Yeah, they don't burn as much cap. They also have the shittiest capacitors in the game-- you can practically cap yourself out running active hardeners much less a shield booster.[/quote

Exactly, I never played the game because I never flown a caldari or minmatar ship ; thank you for showing us how large is your vision of the game..

By the way, yes, your MWD eat your cap, what a scoop ! Though I didn't talk about caldari rail ships, but you can learn about passive resist modules maybe : they don't use cap, and rise your shield resistance. You can also learn to manage your cap by flying non projectile or missile boat ; I won't ask you to try to active tank one pvp ship, because it's obviously not for your current level

@Shin Dari : thank you for not trying to guess what I would say if something happen ; you don't have a clue of who I am and what I would say or think in an hypothetical scenario
By the way, what you want to say is that buffer shield is OP in skirmish, and that the HUGE drawback of armor buffer don't matter in static fight. Though, I heard that caldari BS made very tough nut to crack with buffer shield, pretty much like abaddon ; and I heard that shield cap where not ridiculous anymore next to their armor counterparts in terms of buffer. Oh, and the drake of course..

BTW, problem is not about gallente in themselves eventhough they suffer from the problem, the problem we are speaking about here is rigs and active tank vs buffer tank.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#312 - 2012-04-25 20:44:18 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
By the way, what you want to say is that buffer shield is OP in skirmish, and that the HUGE drawback of armor buffer don't matter in static fight.
Shield isn't OP for skirmish, as a proper shield fit really cuts into the ability fit any other med slots. These slots are used for for propulsion jamming, EW and Energy modules, these are very important in combat.

Quote:
Though, I heard that caldari BS made very tough nut to crack with buffer shield, pretty much like abaddon ; and I heard that shield cap where not ridiculous anymore next to their armor counterparts in terms of buffer. Oh, and the drake of course..
Shield still has less EHP.
Emeos
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#313 - 2012-04-25 21:10:37 UTC
Shin Dari wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
By the way, what you want to say is that buffer shield is OP in skirmish, and that the HUGE drawback of armor buffer don't matter in static fight.
Shield isn't OP for skirmish, as a proper shield fit really cuts into the ability fit any other med slots. These slots are used for for propulsion jamming, EW and Energy modules, these are very important in combat.


I don't think you know what skirmish means..
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#314 - 2012-04-25 21:38:04 UTC
[quote=Shin Dari]Shield isn't OP for skirmish, as a proper shield fit really cuts into the ability fit any other med slots. These slots are used for for propulsion jamming, EW and Energy modules, these are very important in combat.
Shield still has less EHP.[/quote

These are all the advantages of armor on shield : EWAR on med slot, counterbalanced by damage/speed mods on lows ; less ehp and sig bloom for shield, largely counterbalanced by mass addition on plates. Though shield buffer need less slot to tank because of the invulnerability field and the DMC which is a low slot, reducing even further the edge of armor in term of ehp fof skirmish fit
Rig on their side are very harsh for armor fit whereas not very much for shield : speed is a crucial stat, sig is not. What if shield buffer rigs reduce your agility by 15% ? Or your capacitor ? Now you would think twice before fiting a shield rig

Speed is life as much as is the capacitor. Shield buffer and its rigs don't affect any of those while giving as many tank as armor : shield buffer is OP.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2012-04-25 21:44:42 UTC
Someone pointed out something that I totally missed. In ships with a resist bonus that bonus helps out your tank regardless of what type of tank you choose which is to say passive regen, active local rep, remote rep, and buffer tanks all benefit from the resistance increase. But on the other hand ships with rep amount bonus only count towards local rep modules. That is to say only one very specific type of tank is helped by this.

would it not make more sense to have the boost amount count towards local and remote? I could be argued weather counting towards remote meant counting towards remote inbound reps or outbound reps or both. Either way you could see more use of ships with boost amount bonuses and therefore active tanking in fleet battles. Plus it just seems to make sense.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli
Sigras
Conglomo
#316 - 2012-04-25 22:27:01 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Sigras wrote:

Also, the Gallente ships will NEVER catch shield ships flown properly, so who cares if you last 30 seconds while never catching your enemy, its the exact same as lasting 30 minutes while never catching your enemy, you still do 0 damage


Not entirely true - prot and lachesis/arazu have scram range bonuses, prot and diemos (and a couple of others) have 10% falloff bonus which means blasters with null and a couple of TEs can hit out to 40+km fairly effectively.


true, however, the only way you have enough lows to get the same damage and range as a hurricane is to fit a two slot + two rig shield tank. The proteus is a whole other matter but it is my opinion that all T3s need a nerf anyway.

Rroff wrote:
There are setups that can counter kiting shield ships fairly well if your on the ball and fly a decent setup. Even armor tanked the vigilant is quite quick for instance.


just saying that a 800mm plate vigilant with triple trimarks is slower, has less EHP and less range than a hurricane. yes it does have 100 more DPS but the break even point is still like 14 km because of your terrible range, and you usually never get that close cause you're slower even though the hurricane is quite a bit bigger.


I think Ive found the problem. Mid slots can be farmed out to specialized ships like the lachesis or the falcon, and a few of them can do the job for the whole gang, but each ship must fit its own low slot modules, so low slots are more valuable.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#317 - 2012-04-25 22:58:22 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:


Spoken like someone who's literally never played this game ever

Have you even flown a Minmatar / Caldari ship? Yeah, they don't burn as much cap. They also have the shittiest capacitors in the game-- you can practically cap yourself out running active hardeners much less a shield booster.


Exactly, I never played the game because I never flown a caldari or minmatar ship ; thank you for showing us how large is your vision of the game..

By the way, yes, your MWD eat your cap, what a scoop ! Though I didn't talk about caldari rail ships, but you can learn about passive resist modules maybe : they don't use cap, and rise your shield resistance. You can also learn to manage your cap by flying non projectile or missile boat ; I won't ask you to try to active tank one pvp ship, because it's obviously not for your current level


Yeah, I pretty much only fly drakes Roll

I've flown pretty much every subcap in the game except for marauders because they're Bad Ships(TM). I've also spent considerable time flying active tanking setups (even pretty bizarre ones), though most of this was experimental stuff on SiSi, due to the fact that active tanking doesn't work well on TQ for reasons I've already elaborated on. In fact, pretty much all you can do with it on SiSi is start a fight with someone, kill that someone, then get killed by the 50 people who blob you while you're fighting your original target. Coincidentally, this is almost exactly what you can do with an active tanked ship on TQ as well! It's a truly bizarre coincidence...

Pretty much the only active tanked Minmatar ship that is at all practical on TQ is the Fleet Stabber, which is p fun to fly even if it's a gimmick that I rarely get the opportunity to dust off. The Fleet Stabber works because it's fast, and has the CPU/PG/slots to fit two MARs, resist mods, a cap booster, two prop mods AND medium guns, a feat few ships in the game are actually capable of. This is the kind of ship you need for active tanking to be a reasonable alternative to buffers without involving fancy gear and boosting alts.
poo poo inyourshoe
State War Academy
Caldari State
#318 - 2012-04-26 06:47:36 UTC
Perhaps give shield boosters and armor reps a passive omni resist of 25% (debatable) when fit. Combine this with a dramatic increase in amount repped, increase cap cost and reduced cycle time to be able to absorb high incoming damage more easily but for a limited time

Alternatively armor reps could repair continuously over their repair duration (for higher rep amount and cap cost) and while active give a resistance bonus of some degree

Just some thoughts.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#319 - 2012-04-26 08:22:02 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:


I've flown pretty much every subcap in the game except for marauders because they're Bad Ships(TM). I've also spent considerable time flying active tanking setups (even pretty bizarre ones), though most of this was experimental stuff on SiSi, due to the fact that active tanking doesn't work well on TQ for reasons I've already elaborated on. In fact, pretty much all you can do with it on SiSi is start a fight with someone, kill that someone, then get killed by the 50 people who blob you while you're fighting your original target. Coincidentally, this is almost exactly what you can do with an active tanked ship on TQ as well! It's a truly bizarre coincidence...

Pretty much the only active tanked Minmatar ship that is at all practical on TQ is the Fleet Stabber, which is p fun to fly even if it's a gimmick that I rarely get the opportunity to dust off. The Fleet Stabber works because it's fast, and has the CPU/PG/slots to fit two MARs, resist mods, a cap booster, two prop mods AND medium guns, a feat few ships in the game are actually capable of. This is the kind of ship you need for active tanking to be a reasonable alternative to buffers without involving fancy gear and boosting alts.


Soo basically you are saying that active tank is working for very small gang work right ? No one here ever said that active tanking was blob proof.
As for the stabber fleet issue, thank you for confirming that active tanking work on fast ships, exactly as I said.

So here I am again : you don't active shield tank you ship, because buffer shield is just plain better, because it require less slot and sig is unsignificant drawback ; and you active armor tank only the ships with enough speed after the rigs penalty (frigates, SFI, tengu), or ship with insame actifve armor rep which don't care about speed because they are already very slow (Myrm, Hyperion).

Hence, there is a disparity between active and buffer tank ; and shield buffer is OP because on top of being a buffer, it doesn't have significant drawback when armor does have one.
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#320 - 2012-04-26 08:49:40 UTC
By 'passive' tanking do you mean 'passive shield recharge' or 'ehp buffer'? I'm all for nerfing innate passive shield recharging. Pirate

Ok, so, any ship that wants to be super resilient should also lack mobility. And any ship relying on speed for survival should be killed instantly by artilley when they appear on gridP

I can't help but think this is a way of trying to make blaster boats work without addressing the ridiculously short range of said weapons. More armour should make you go slow; it just makes sense. Local repping is a poor substitute for buffer tank on either shield or armour fits, especially with cap warfare as popular as it is. Trying to make local repping in pvp more attractive isn't going to work when it's just going to make your ship more cap-intensive and vulnerable. Doesn't matter how awesome your tengu, maelstrom or hyperion is fit; with a couple of neuts on you it's just a matter of time 'til the piñata breaks.

If I were to make a change here, it'd be to remove the rep bonuses from gallente and minmatar ships, and replace them with 5% shield or armour amount per level, because that's actually useful. Oh, and increase blaster range by 100% so gallente blaster boats work better. Fixed.

"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.