These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#321 - 2012-04-26 11:27:39 UTC
Galphii wrote:
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.


As I said, shield buffer don't necessarily need a speed penalty, but they need a meaningful penalty, something as harsh as a speed penalty (and no here disagree that speed penalty is really harsh, otherwise it wouldn't be a real problem to give it to shield). Capacitor, electronic (sensor strength for example) or fitting (CPU/PG) are some trails.

And blasters with more range would be OP, and neut are a threat only because the ones whom use them don't use their cap at all to fly and kill you. How many amarr boat have you ever seen with neut for skirmish ? If active tank had an advantage over buffer, then, even with neut it would be balanced, the neut being one of the balancing factor (counterable by nos/cap booster).
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#322 - 2012-04-26 11:51:44 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

As I said, shield buffer don't necessarily need a speed penalty, but they need a meaningful penalty, something as harsh as a speed penalty (and no here disagree that speed penalty is really harsh, otherwise it wouldn't be a real problem to give it to shield). Capacitor, electronic (sensor strength for example) or fitting (CPU/PG) are some trails.

And blasters with more range would be OP, and neut are a threat only because the ones whom use them don't use their cap at all to fly and kill you. How many amarr boat have you ever seen with neut for skirmish ? If active tank had an advantage over buffer, then, even with neut it would be balanced, the neut being one of the balancing factor (counterable by nos/cap booster).


Reduce blaster damage a bit then - it's stupid to have to plow a slow-ass blaster boat into 3km range just to put slightly more damage on a target than other weapon systems. Increase range, reduce the damage/tracking accordingly. Do what it takes.

But enough of that: I like the idea of a capacitor penalty for shields, I mean they do auto-recharge, so it makes sense that the power has to come from somewhere.

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

Phobos Vortex
#323 - 2012-04-26 16:30:36 UTC
A solution for the balancing problem of active and passive tanking without fixing the factions to one of the tanking methods could be the opening of the subsystem slots for all ships in combination with the introduction of mini-subsystems.
This idea starts with fixed roles for active and passive tanking to PvE and PvP.

Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP

To ensure that every combat related ship can be used for both purposes every ship is limited to a certain number of mini-subsystems equal to the number of bonuses the ship has. These mini-subsystem slots replace the bonuses of the ships completely while each subsystem provides a new bonus.

For example the Brutix:

The Brutix now has:
-A bonus for active tanking
-A bonus for medium hybrid damage

With this system the Brutix would get:
-1 defensive gallente battlecruiser mini-subsystem slot (2 Available gallente battlecruiser mini-subsystems: 1. Armor rep effectiveness bonus, 2. Armor resistances bonus)
-1 offensive gallente battlecruiser mini-subsystem slot (2 Available gallente battlecruiser mini-subsystems: 1. Medium blaster damage bonus, 2. Medium railgun damage bonus)

This way the bonuses of all ships are no longer fixed and get customizable in a specific frame. The Brutix would now be capable of active or passive armor tanking depending on the installed gallente mini-subsystem. These modules could be related to the actual subsystem skills (lv 1 for frig subsystems, 2 for destroyers... 5 for battleships and above)
This system can also be easily transferred to other bonuses related to propulsion, engineering or electronic purposes. I hope you understand the proposed system and can think of more possible expansions and tweaks to make it work as intended. The only disadvantage of this system i see atm is the massive amount of balancing work to determine the available mini-subsystems for each ship. It also adds a huge amount of complexity to the game due to the new customization options.

/flame on xD
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#324 - 2012-04-26 17:24:11 UTC
Galphii wrote:


Reduce blaster damage a bit then - it's stupid to have to plow a slow-ass blaster boat into 3km range just to put slightly more damage on a target than other weapon systems. Increase range, reduce the damage/tracking accordingly. Do what it takes.


Turning blaster into autocanon is week ; and blaster boat able to dictate range is OP.

Quote:
Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP

This is stupid.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#325 - 2012-04-26 17:46:00 UTC
I have to go to class right now but Bouh Revetoile's posting has incensed me. Dude, you seriously don't get how this game works.
Phobos Vortex
#326 - 2012-04-26 17:47:31 UTC
Quote:
Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP

This is stupid.[/quote]

Why? I understand the point that it would remove some of the diversity but the way active tanking with armor repairers or shield boosters works has so many disadvantages in pvp as long as your entire tank can be neuted away in seconds. The situation with active tanks in pvp gets even worse as soon as logistics are involved. Passive tanking in pve where neuts are rare is almost never as efficient as active tanking. Maybe i have expressed it wrong because i meant with active tanking that boosters/ repairers are used while passive means buffer tanking.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#327 - 2012-04-26 18:24:43 UTC
Phobos Vortex wrote:

Active Tanking = proper PvP
Passive Tanking = blobtardation

/flame on xD

Fixed for you.

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

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#328 - 2012-04-26 18:37:43 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
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.


No, but thanks for deliberately misinterpreting what I said. I am saying that most ships can't even fit for an active tank while still being combat effective.

Buffer tanks aren't "blob-proof" either, idiot. Any cruiser is gonna get smoked if it puts itself in the middle of a shitstorm. The difference is that most active-tanked ships will get smoked by as few as one opposing ship, which makes them pretty damn useless.

I'm too mad to continue writing right now. So sick of spelling out over and over again what's wrong with certain ships with regard to certain playstyles only to have them keep trollin cause they don't want anyone to be able to compete with their battlecruiser blobs.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#329 - 2012-04-26 19:08:24 UTC

What if ACTIVE hardeners only work with ACTIVE tanking...

Hence, PASSIVE tanking is reduced to using PASSIVE hardeners....

Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to implement this: The only way I can think of, is for a booster/repper to fill up with some cap when they are cycled, and for the active hardeners to pull the cap they need to activate from the booster/repper rather than from the ships capacitor...

You could also add a script to all reppers/boosters to ONLY refill on cap (to run active hardeners)
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
It Burns When I'm PvPing
#330 - 2012-04-26 19:43:27 UTC
First thanks for sharing ideas with the community ccp. Shame on the few players in this thread that fly off the handle with insults when ccp posts with ideas. If you want to know why ccp doesn't brainstorm with the community its because of people like that.

Emeos wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
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.


I'm curious about your reasoning behind this. Could you elaborate?


This I think is a good question to ask. What are you trying to accomplish with these changes? The changes themselves aren't that big of a deal but the thought process behind them might be.

It does seem that gallente and minmatar ships are better at solo and very small scale combat. This is because of their speed. Slower ships aren't great in solo or very small scale combat because they often can't hold the enemy long enough to kill them.

Its also true that local active tanking is only really useful in very small scale combat and solo combat. For large groups you are almost always better with a buffer tank or remote reps.

So this would lead to a somewhat more defined role for ships as either being good solo ships or good fleet ships. Is this a good idea?

Already I have ships that I will fly in a fleet but never solo and vice versa. Is it good to widen that gap?


I am not sure but I tend to think not. For a solo pilot active tanking is not that much worse than passive tanking. From a solo pilots both are viable - although I admit I do give some nod to the passive.


The question is are you going to try to buff local active tanking to the point where it is competetive with passive tanks in larger gangs? I think if you do that then on the solo level active tanks will be the only choice.

Since I tend to like combat in the very small scale or solo level I would prefer that they keep the diversity of tanks at that level even though that means active tanks won't be used in larger fleets.

In sum: it is impossible to make it so active tanks and passive tanks are both equally viable for large gangs and solo and small gangs. Accordinly I would say don't try to make Active tanks viable for large gangs but perhaps give them a bit of a boost to make them more viable at the solo small gang level so that they are on par with passive tanks at that level.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Sigras
Conglomo
#331 - 2012-04-26 20:50:28 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Galphii wrote:


Reduce blaster damage a bit then - it's stupid to have to plow a slow-ass blaster boat into 3km range just to put slightly more damage on a target than other weapon systems. Increase range, reduce the damage/tracking accordingly. Do what it takes.


Turning blaster into autocanon is week ; and blaster boat able to dictate range is OP.


Why is that OP? they still have to commit to every single fight. with blasters there are two options:
1. im going to win
2. im going to die.

Unless your opponents are idiots, there is no third option. This is in stark contrast to autocannons which never force you to commit, unless something goes horribly wrong, you should not die in a speed tanked autocannon ship.

but i digress, this is getting a bit off topic.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#332 - 2012-04-27 00:36:47 UTC

Blasters boats should be good at sprinting and poor at running...

Autocannon boats should be slower at sprinting and better at running....


I think the best solution to the slow blasterboats can't get in range problem is to rebalance of the afterburner & MWD mods.

Increase MWD speed boost a little... say 600% instead of 500%, but make it consume twice as much cap....
Double the AB speed boost... from 125 to to 250ish... but reduce the agility penalties (i.e... they are still agile)

Essentially, make perma-mwding ships a thing of the past, and make speedy ships (Vagas, stabbers, etc) rely on ab's to be constantly fast.

Adjust ship speeds to maintain a balance between ship classes, sizes, etc...
Galphii
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#333 - 2012-04-27 02:31:38 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

Turning blaster into autocanon is week ; and blaster boat able to dictate range is OP.

Increasing effective range on medium blasters from 3km to 6km is not dictating range in the slightest, it just means you don't have to park inside the ass of the ship you're fighting to hit.

Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP
This is stupid.


My megathron wants to meet your hyperion and do terrible things to it.

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

Sigras
Conglomo
#334 - 2012-04-27 05:25:25 UTC
Galphii wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP
This is stupid.


My megathron wants to meet your hyperion and do terrible things to it.

I would actually probably take that fight . . . I would stand a reasonable chance of winning, now if it were 2v2 that would be another story entirely.

On the topic of rigs, I think a good first step is to give a solid nerf to extender rigs and trimarks. This should probably be in the way of adding a stacking penalty and changing the way they apply their damage,

IE right now the formula is New_Armor = Old_Armor * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.15 - direct stacking, this works out to be around 52% more armor

My proposal would be to change it to be additive New_Armor = Old_Armor * (1 + .15 + .15 + .15) would work out to be 45% more armor.

That along with a stack nerf so instead of each applying a full 15%, they would apply 15%, 13.05% and 8.55% respectively

Either of these nerfs would make me happy, but I think both of them together are necessary, and that would be a good first step.

Right now the extender rigs and the trimarks are used more than any other rig in their category by an order of magnitude, just look at the numbers traded in jita. This clearly indicates a problem that needs to be taken care of.
Ken Kyoukan
#335 - 2012-04-27 11:47:41 UTC
I know this isn't now going ahead but I would still like to give one suggestion towards this and possible future changes.

The penalties rather than being say a fixed 15% could do with being (based on 15%):

Small Rig: 0.15%
Medium: 1.5%
Large: 15%
XL (if ever): 30%

This would be per rig and does not include the stacking penalty.

2x small rig 0.3% stacking penalty 0.05% maybe, 0.35%
3x small rig 0.45% with ^, 0.55% or similar

This way the larger the ship and more effective the rig the larger the penalty.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#336 - 2012-04-27 13:52:23 UTC
It’s a complicated issue. Splitting Active Armour rigs and Active shield rigs out form the Buffer rigs is probably a good idea, it is the rig penalties that would apply to each group that is probably the sticking point Active armour and Active shield should remain is separate groups with different drawbacks. There would also be a need to adjust rig calibration usage and introduce more rigs into each category to provide different options.

As others have said though rig penalties and calibration costs need looking at across the board some rigs are underused or even not worthwhile.

It does seem to bring us back to the Gallente problem Armour rigs punish speed that they need for the short range weapons systems and astronautics rigs that give speed punish armour tanking.
Frio Rinah
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#337 - 2012-04-27 14:33:48 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

What if ACTIVE hardeners only work with ACTIVE tanking...

Hence, PASSIVE tanking is reduced to using PASSIVE hardeners....

Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to implement this

Active Hardeners become modules that give all repair modules their resistance bonus? (Doing nothing or being weaker on their own)

E.g. 2 reppers, with 4-5 hardeners, both of those reppers give the resistance bonuses of all hardeners (for an effective 8-10).

Result is paper thin tank without reppers running, but very formidable when they're all active. Could be utilized to provide strong alpha survivability, while falling off long term due to cap.

That would still require a bit of mathematics though in order to work out how to not grant overly excessive resistances. Theres lots of approaches on this angle, and I'm uncertain of which would be best.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#338 - 2012-04-27 16:09:02 UTC
Frio Rinah wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

What if ACTIVE hardeners only work with ACTIVE tanking...

Hence, PASSIVE tanking is reduced to using PASSIVE hardeners....

Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to implement this

Active Hardeners become modules that give all repair modules their resistance bonus? (Doing nothing or being weaker on their own)

E.g. 2 reppers, with 4-5 hardeners, both of those reppers give the resistance bonuses of all hardeners (for an effective 8-10).

Result is paper thin tank without reppers running, but very formidable when they're all active. Could be utilized to provide strong alpha survivability, while falling off long term due to cap.

That would still require a bit of mathematics though in order to work out how to not grant overly excessive resistances. Theres lots of approaches on this angle, and I'm uncertain of which would be best.


This is a good implementation.... I would think the passive/active modules need to be reviewed a little (like there is no armor equivalent to IFs, and there are no shield equivalents to EANMs), and the numbers carefully reviewed.... but most ships are fairly well balanced if you implement this....

X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#339 - 2012-04-27 18:39:44 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Alticus C Bear wrote:
It does seem to bring us back to the Gallente problem Armour rigs punish speed that they need for the short range weapons systems and astronautics rigs that give speed punish armour tanking.
Gallente are supposed to favor DPS over EHP in the DPS*EHP race. You would think the dps increase by using hybrid turret rigs ought to make up for the loss in potential increase in EHP due to trimark/shield rigs, but they don't mainly because of the stacking amplification pointed out already (and PG penalty to turret rigs). One way to at least put some choice into this is either nerf the EHP rigs, or buff the DPS rigs (remove their stacking penalty, or reduce PG penalty).
Jarn Kalden
Charge Research and Production
#340 - 2012-04-27 19:10:30 UTC
In my opinion the problem with active tanking are not only the rig penaltys but the webbers. For active tanking you need to avoid getting hit and just repair the few hits you get. This means you have to achive a higher transversal speed than the enemy turrets can track, which means getting close and then you are in webber range and the "speed tanking" is not possible anymore. Further problem with this are the short range weapons, their optimals are all inside the webber range, for autocannons this gets negated a bit by their huge falloff but blaster loose about 50% dmg if you stay out of webber range.