These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Madbuster73
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#361 - 2012-05-04 19:14:00 UTC
I really think that nerfing speed on passive shield ships will mean that minmatar shield ships will become utterly useless...


VERY BAD IDEA......

Dont nerf speed on passive shield, active tanking a kiting ship is not gonna work (cap issues)....

Laura Armitage
Cryosleep Inc.
#362 - 2012-05-05 09:11:18 UTC
As pointed out, the suggested ideas are pretty much horrible. I will not reproduce all the reasons for it but make some suggestions:


Why does active and passive tanking actually have to be used in the same situations? Right now, active tanking is great if you are exposed to relative constant damage over a larger period of time (and if you can manage cap stability).

At the same time, passive tanking is great if you fly in a gang that has a logistics ship. The increased hp will give the logistic pilot enough time to lock you and repair you. Also, even if you receive more dps than your logistics can handle, increased hp increase the time they repair you. And because of that the total damage you withstand is higher.

Maybe the question should not be: How to give them the same efficiency, but when would you want a power consuming, hp-regeneration module.

Imho: If you are exposed to constant damage, and have enough cap-regeneration to repair more damage than you receive. Like in a 1on1 situation or in solo PvE situations. Basically if you can outperform the remote repair power of a single logistics ship, you will have balanced active tanking. (Because it becomes viable in solo/very small group PvP AND PvE)

Unfortunatly, in order to be efficient, the logistics ships can compensate a lot of dps AND stay cap stable while doing so. But giving the repair-power of a logistics to a single ship would also be a bit problematic.

A possible solution could be to rework signature tanking, aswells as reworking the active tanking modules and rigs.

The rigs:
Something that helps sig-tanking would be great. Would allow smaller ships to specialise in fight against larger ones, while doesn't help that much against smaller ships.

Tanking modules:
"All power to the tanking module and over heat it aswel" should be possible. Overheating would increase the hp/cap amount, while scripts or another mechanic will let you regulate the cycle time to some extend, allowing you a cap conservative slow regeneration of your tank aswell as an cap-intense fast armor repair.

Balance between shipclasses and module sizes : Signature tanking
Balance is already achived because the capacitor on a smaller ship is much smaller and regenerates much less power than on a bigger ship. Module sizes would just change base values (e.g. 100, 200, 400, 800 shield per 2sec Cycle @ 100, 200, 400, 800 energy. Scripts could then modify this values btw random values just to explain concept, Scripts could come wit 25% 50% 75% 100% 150% and 200% repair amount per cycle).

Signature tanking:
In order to make this not "The strongest capacitor tanks more and wins" Signature tanking, should be used to give smaller ships an edge over bigger enemies. Reworked NOS and Neuts will also help to maintain a versatile and complex combat environment.


Oh, and about armor vs. shield tanking:

Give armor tanking ships something to put in those free midslots. Like some working e-war... just don't overdo with it like you did in the past.

Armor tanking:
Highslots: Weapons
Midslots: Ewar propulsion tackle
LowSlots: Tank
Does less dps, but negates enemies dps to some extend

Shieldtank:
Highslolts: Weapons
Midslots: Tank Propulsion Tackle
Lowslots: Damage mods, propulsion mods
Does more dps, but doesn't negate enemies dps at all.

(just again, balance this, 99% less sensor range is stupid, But 50% reduced sensor range of 80km base sensor range are stupid aswell if you have to be at 10km to achive this)


Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#363 - 2012-05-08 16:23:54 UTC
Personnaly I ever seen this as totally inverted. Active tankign shoudl be for immobile ships but MUCH more powerful than it is today and mobile ships taht are using most of its power in engine should focus on passive tanking. But CCP from start decided races bonuses all wrong.


Active tanking modules would need to be 30-40% more POWERFUL and about 50% more efficiency than they have today to be useful.


Startign by the rigs is a no no. Jsut check the dumb concepts CCP made my makign the minmatar fleet ship (the maelstrom) have active tanking bonus. That is beyond reasoning. IF a maelstrom cannot field a tank that can resist 20 other fleet battleship at 150 km for at least the same amount of time those ships would take to kill an abaddon, then the bonus is USELESS!


I had an idea during my rant. Make Active shield boosting and armor repair REDUCE your signature by between 5 and 15% dependign on module whiel active. THat shoudl reduce the incomming damage and coudl match well with speed tanking.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#364 - 2012-05-08 18:08:54 UTC
In general the proposed penalties are not a good idea.

First of all it encourages a less versatile use of the rigs, while the rigs were introduced as an additional variable to ship fitting.

Secondly, the suggested synergies actually would penalize some of the few viable active tanking setups, particularly for minmatar. For fleet PvP the doctrine will largely remain the same, you'll just have a bunch of slow ships that aren't quite as slow.

Something to consider:


  • Armor rigs give a slight penalty to shield total or recharge, and Shield rigs have a slight penalty to armor?
  • Increased sig radius for both shield and armor rigs.
  • Get rid of the penalties and limit the bonuses with calibration.
  • Increased PG or CPU requirements for armor/shield modules.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon

Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2012-05-08 21:58:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Linna Excel
I'm hardly an expert, but this seems like a roundabout attempt to fix blasterboats, in which case, you're doing it wrong.

IMO maybe you guys should try to fix the ships as well as possible first. You mentioned gallente: some of their ships are active, some are buffer. With neuts and having to run MWD (which also makes them easier to hit as it is), blasterboats won't be able to active tank very long and making them easier to hit only exasperates the problem.

Likewise I'm a little worried that you are trying to pidginhole all racial ships into one flavor of combat or another. And as players more knowledgeable than I have pointed out: there are 4 types of tanking, not two, and it is questionable if whoever made this call even reads the forums, much less plays the game. I've done virtually no PvP previously but after a quick check of the wiki and the forums, I've seen enough evidence to say that buffer tanking is how you PvP: it's been like that since before I tried out the game for the first time last year.

Quite frankly until we have a very good idea what the ships will be like after the upcoming balances and "class"-ing them, trying to change to many variables at once will only add to the burden. You are also making me consider this as well: how active tanking works, in terms of cycles, cap use, and recovery amount seems likely to be changing as well. Or at least your post hints that.

So how are we to know if what you've said is a good idea with virtually nothing to go by? Most players here are going by their experiences and unless you're drastically changing how combat works (enough so that asking them this is pointless) a thread like this isn't going to get much in the terms of useful comments in terms of the new system.
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#366 - 2012-05-09 00:53:26 UTC
Cant you just double or triple sheild/armor rep on the modules. This would make it viable to active tank but still in big fights you would need buffer.
Artyom Hunter
Origin.
Fraternity.
#367 - 2012-05-09 08:09:11 UTC
Unless you SERIOUSLY BOOST CALDARI BLASTER BOAT SPEED, this is just going to make Caldari Blaster boats even worse. The Ferox for example, a hardly used ship because of it's close range and lack of speed will just be used less, you will probably be able to kite it in a close range battleship.

In essence. I think that making shield rigs reduce speed is a bad bad bad idea, with Caldari, once again drawing the short straw and taking the brunt of the pounding for the other 3 races.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#368 - 2012-05-10 15:44:18 UTC
Unsticking this since this is not going to be released for Inferno, or without any kind of serious balancing on passive / active tanking.

We'll keep an open eye on this thread though, as there are some good suggestions here.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#369 - 2012-05-10 15:51:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Bubanni
just simply add another penality to armor rigs instead of speed reduction... like just agility reduction or something

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

kalbrak Jr
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#370 - 2012-06-30 11:39:00 UTC
What if shield and armor rigs had no drawbacks other than the stacking penalty? Would this be too much?
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#371 - 2012-06-30 16:12:07 UTC
kalbrak Jr wrote:
What if shield and armor rigs had no drawbacks other than the stacking penalty? Would this be too much?

They already are the most used rigs by a large margin, no need to make them even better IMO unless you want to thrash all the other rigs.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#372 - 2012-06-30 18:51:33 UTC
in the light of boosting active tanking with rigs...

why dont we just remove the penalties from active tank shield/armor modules
( nanobot accs, aux. nano pumps, operational soldifiers, capacitor safeguards)



active tanking is boosted and no one is hurt Lol
kalbrak Jr
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#373 - 2012-07-03 00:08:32 UTC
What if they removed the penalty from all the rigs? Would they be overpowered than?
Luc Arbosa
EVE University
Ivy League
#374 - 2012-07-03 01:35:11 UTC
I think the active tank boost is a solution in search of a problem.

Remote reps are by design much more powerful than local reps, as this encourages specialization and teamwork. Unless this one fact changes, then the advantage will always be to mix fleet comp of buffer DPS + logi, no matter what the ship bonuses are. In order for a local rep bonus to be big enough to make it viable in a fleet scale engagement, it would be massively OP for solo/small gang/PVE.

The fact is all four races will need ships bonused for fleet engagements and ones bonused for small gang/solo work. If you insist on racial bonuses, you will end up with some races which are suboptimal for fleet scale work or which have significant holes in their ship lineup.
Ares Lee
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2012-07-03 08:52:07 UTC
I think the shield hp rig should provide less increase in hp, while it will have no side effect at all. The armour rig will be more effective with the speed penalty.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#376 - 2012-07-03 09:55:48 UTC
Luc Arbosa wrote:

The fact is all four races will need ships bonused for fleet engagements and ones bonused for small gang/solo work. If you insist on racial bonuses, you will end up with some races which are suboptimal for fleet scale work or which have significant holes in their ship lineup.

Maelstrom says you are wrong on this.
Luc Arbosa
EVE University
Ivy League
#377 - 2012-07-03 16:11:33 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Luc Arbosa wrote:

The fact is all four races will need ships bonused for fleet engagements and ones bonused for small gang/solo work. If you insist on racial bonuses, you will end up with some races which are suboptimal for fleet scale work or which have significant holes in their ship lineup.

Maelstrom says you are wrong on this.


The Maelstrom is has a damage bonus, 8 high slots of the same weapon time, and lots of mids to give it a good buffer tank. It is used in spite of its repair bonus, not because of it. Compared to the other tier 3 battleships, the Abaddon has to balance gank with tank in its lows, the Hyperion also is armor tanked and stuck with an armor rep bonus, and the Rokh has a shield resist bonus but no damage bonus.

How many Hyperions do you see on the killboards?
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#378 - 2012-07-05 21:33:46 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Unsticking this since this is not going to be released for Inferno, or without any kind of serious balancing on passive / active tanking.

We'll keep an open eye on this thread though, as there are some good suggestions here.

So, it's now 2 months since you scrapped that concept (a very promising one).

One might think that you've got something else then. I, for one, am eager to hear what exactly are you thinking of in this regard.

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