These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aliaksandre
Screaming Hayabusa
Neo-Bushido Movement
#161 - 2012-04-23 21:07:33 UTC
My god no.

Actually fix active, don't nerf passive.

As i'm sure has been stated somewhere in this thread, you are severely limiting many minmatar ships that are shield tanked and rely on speed. Who wants to fight canes, rifters, and ruptures who are ALL always armor tanked?

You're killing fitting variety.
james1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
#162 - 2012-04-23 21:10:37 UTC
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
As much as I am giddy at the concept of nerfing passive tanks and boosting active tanks, this is the wrong way to go about it.
Yes, passive tanking is insanely powerful, specifically shields.
Yes, active tanking is the black sheep of tanking, specifically armor.

The biggest problem is scaling the two types of tanking for different types of fights and different, uh, price brackets:
For roaming, active tanking is acceptable, but as the number of targets go up, becomes more and more useless.
Passive tanking on the other hand, is always acceptable, and becomes the method of choice as the number of targets begin to ramp up into the large scale.

Both are heavily augmented by link warfare, however one uses cap, and the other does not.
At the same time, shields regenerate and armor does not, giving a sizable edge to shield tanking.

These proposals don't change any of the above constants.
Active tanking will still be comparatively weak, and passive tanking will still be the ideal method.
As someone who routinely pilots active-tanking armor ships, I never stop to think how much slower my rep augmenting rigs are making me. Is it a downside, sure, but it's not something so ridiculous that I think a whole redesign is needed.

Since the speed/agility changes we (CSM6) made in Crucible, this proposal seems a bit outdated and unnecessary.
If you want to change the speed penalty from active armor rigs, go right ahead, but there's no reason to nerf the **** out of passive rigs. The number of ships that gain from this is far smaller than the number of ships that will be nerfed quite heavily.

There are a handful of ships that come to mind that would be heavily effected by these changes;
The Hurricane, Vagabond, Cynabal, Drake, & Tier3 BCs

The Hurricane needs a slap, but this isn't the way to do it.
It's got too much grid and too much speed. Reduce both stats at the ship, not in the rigs.

The Vagabond is a fine ship, leave it alone.

The Cynabal is too agile, has too much SS, and too much grid.
Reduce the stats at the ship, not in the rigs.

Tier3s are heavily niched ships, which are too fast/agile (moreso with links).
They're faster and more agile than HACs, which have no way to compete.
Reduce the stats at the ships, not in the rigs.

I think that about sums it up!


Sums it up quite well.

I also believe that the cynabal, tier 3s and hurricane need a small nerf. Also shield recharging over time is a massive benefit to shield tanking especially when out roaming deep null and there is no station to dock at to rep your armor for 30 jumps >.<

I like the direction you seem to be going but I don't think these changes are the right way forward

....

Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#163 - 2012-04-23 21:11:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Reducing speed by mere 10-15% is killing? lol

Back in 2005 and early 2006 they trippled HP. Now that was a kill. Active tanks became very niche precisely since then. Oh, wait, b00ns didn't even play back then, so what can they know...

Still, just a simple fact: my Prophecy had 2k armour HP when I first bought it. Nowadays it's over 6k.

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

Lucas Quaan
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#164 - 2012-04-23 21:15:45 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
By increasing the bloom on active tanks, it means that shots are more likely to hit, which makes it that much harder to active tank.

You mean exactly like it is today?
John Maynard Keynes
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#165 - 2012-04-23 21:19:11 UTC  |  Edited by: John Maynard Keynes
nothing here
Josef Stylin
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2012-04-23 21:28:46 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Josef Stylin wrote:
To add something meaningful to to this discussion - if you wanna improve active tank rigs, just double how good they are, eg. Nanobot Accelerators go from 15% to 30%. This is arbitrary of course, you could increase it to 25% or 20%, what I mean is, you don't have to restructure everything, all you need to do is buff the active tank rigs, it really isn't that hard.

No need in making EVE even more overtanked.

Tanking values are fine as they are.

EHP is NOT fine. Velocity values are NOT fine. Fittings are NOT fine.

Bring EHP values back to where they were in 2005 and by that alone you'll fix active tank with no effort.



In that case - reduce EHP bonus of buffer mods and rigs.

My point was that CCP seems to be overthinking this thing about what they must change, when really it seems to be they just need to tweak some values instead of doing some complete overhaul.
Dengen Krastinov
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#167 - 2012-04-23 21:39:23 UTC
This is pretty dumb icbirt Roll
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#168 - 2012-04-23 21:41:01 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.

You're going to bias Minmatar ships (the ships with the LEAST amount of capacitor/cap regen in the game) towards active shield tanking (the most cap-hungry tanking method in the game)?

I just can't believe you're actually considering any of this. You're aware that the only times active tanking works are PvE scenarios where the incoming DPS is predictable and limited, and ridiculous PvP scenarios involving deadspace / officer fit ships, legions of boosting alts, billions in implants and designer drugs, right?


The only thing you complained about here was breaking the status quo. There's no need for hyperbole here.

-Liang


Oh, how I love EVEO. Come in, make valid criticisms of proposed changes, get snubbed by hordes of post-signing, drake-flying, risk-averse highsec publords.

Yeah, there's absolutely no relevant commentary / criticism in my post. None at all.

**** you. Play the game the way its meant to be played before you come in whining about how Cynabals are overpowered.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#169 - 2012-04-23 21:42:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Josef Stylin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Josef Stylin wrote:
To add something meaningful to to this discussion - if you wanna improve active tank rigs, just double how good they are, eg. Nanobot Accelerators go from 15% to 30%. This is arbitrary of course, you could increase it to 25% or 20%, what I mean is, you don't have to restructure everything, all you need to do is buff the active tank rigs, it really isn't that hard.

No need in making EVE even more overtanked.

Tanking values are fine as they are.

EHP is NOT fine. Velocity values are NOT fine. Fittings are NOT fine.

Bring EHP values back to where they were in 2005 and by that alone you'll fix active tank with no effort.



In that case - reduce EHP bonus of buffer mods and rigs.

My point was that CCP seems to be overthinking this thing about what they must change, when really it seems to be they just need to tweak some values instead of doing some complete overhaul.

Overhaul is much needed because current drawbacks on rigs make no sense - and if anything, it's literally impossible to make them balanced while sticking to a (fail) concept of signature being equal to velocity. Penalties should be of proper significance, otherwise it makes no sense in having them at all.

Signature radius penalty is a joke. It might make some sense only if they increase it to 50-60% (per rig, so that at lvl 5 it's 25-30%), but why should shield rigs enjoy special treatment? It's much easier to just penalize meaningful stat - like velocity.

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

Raivi
Perkone
Caldari State
#170 - 2012-04-23 21:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Raivi
I'm totally fine with putting speed penalties on buffer rigs, especially if it goes hand in hand with some buffs to active tanking

I've always been a fan of buffer tanking (400mm rifter and 1600mm rupture were my start in pvp, and I then moved on to shield buffer fit broadswords vagas and cynabals) but I think giving a speed penalty to the passive tanking rigs will make the choice to use them or not use them more interesting as opposed to their current status as no-brainer defaults.

Also happy side effect, these changes would shake up tournament fittings a little bit.

Also, it's not like a tiny nerf to the speed of shield hurricanes and drakes is going to make them any less playable.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#171 - 2012-04-23 21:48:35 UTC
Sooo maaany teaaars ! :
Minmatar tears on top of that ! I love it

By the way, most people seem to never had ran an active tank

These changes are great
- no change for armor buffer
- nerf to shield buffer
This make them balanced as right now shield buffer had a pretty neet advantage over armor buffer
- problem with resist rigs for active shield tank
- buff to active armor tank
In pvp, you use armor active tank when your ship have bonus to it or can outtank it's ennemies, or when you expect to speed tank your ennemy and keep some regen (assault frig vs larger target for exemple, or tengu) ; speed here is very welcome ! I think it's a good buff ! No one care about sig unless there is a risk of being alphaed by a large arty ship ; and even then, speed is often better than sig
I don't really see a problem for active shield tank, but I don't use it ; and I think that many people don't use it because there is no drawback to shield buffer
If you want to purely sig tank, then don't use tanking rigs, but speed rigs. These rig keep the shield's advantage at speed by the way

As stated, active tanking rigs would like to not have any drawback, but sig penalty is not very harsh IMO : proof is that no one care about sig penalty for their shield buffer at the moment, so people must be able to live with it.
Tess La'Coil
Messerschmitt Vertrieb und Logistik
#172 - 2012-04-23 21:53:38 UTC
Am I the only one feeling a hunch of "resilience" and reducing of enourmous "EHP Pools"
Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother. 
Savaage
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2012-04-23 21:56:46 UTC
This is probably not the best move. Active tanking is fairly useless in situations using more than 3-4 people on each side in pvp and/or solo pve. Unless active tanking gets a Major buff its simple not viable compared to passive tank + logistics. Forcing speed ships to change to an active tank without a large buff in local rep amounts or something to that effect means they are far less aided by logistics which just about every gang should have at this point. and with scaling of the fights active tanking becomes less and less viable with more people. so if your small gang warfare is <4 then active tanking makes since. but a more realistic small gang fight would be 15 on 15. Unless active tanks get buffed to where they are similar in rep power to 2-4 logistics reping a resistance/hp passive fit, then all this will do is hurt gal and min ships.
Mumtaz Khan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#174 - 2012-04-23 21:57:03 UTC
I'm not much of a fan of this change. It's a step in the direction of homogenizing shield and armor tanking. As it stands, there are good reasons to prefer one type of defense over another. It's a hot debate over "why such and such is imbalanced" because different tanks do better in different roles. It's an established fact that shields are better for faster, smaller gangs, and armor is better for slower, larger gangs.

It's an accepted fact that if you want to tank armor, you sacrifice speed for trimarks and plates, and that if you want to tank shields, you sacrifice sig for extenders. These changes don't effect armor pilots because they will already be sacrificing speed, but will effect shield pilots because they will be sacrificing both sig AND speed.
Katalci
Catgirl Courtesan Club
#175 - 2012-04-23 21:59:47 UTC
Hey guys let's base our game design decisions on RP! It'll end very well!
JayhawkReaper
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#176 - 2012-04-23 22:06:01 UTC
No one uses an active tank on anything other than 1v1 because once you are primaried and take more DPS than you can rep in a single cycle, your ship pops. None of these changes does anything to address that. For this reason, the only effect will be a massive nerf on anything that uses buffer rigs without actually addressing the issue and encouraging people to active tank. I will not be more likely to active tank my Hurricane because the active tank will not be any stronger than it was before. I'll just switch to DPS rigs and pray I can out DPS my opponents before I get called primary.

If you want to encourage active tanking, take away sig radius penalty on MWD for Mini and Gallente ships. This would make local reps hold up, if the ship is flown correctly (high transversal), even when the ship is primaried, while allowing the ship to utilized its speed and be the brawler it is intended to be.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#177 - 2012-04-23 22:07:47 UTC
Raivi wrote:
I'm totally fine with putting speed penalties on buffer rigs, especially if it goes hand in hand with some buffs to active tanking

I've always been a fan of buffer tanking (400mm rifter and 1600mm rupture were my start in pvp, and I then moved on to shield buffer fit broadswords vagas and cynabals) but I think giving a speed penalty to the passive tanking rigs will make the choice to use them or not use them more interesting as opposed to their current status as no-brainer defaults.

Also happy side effect, these changes would shake up tournament fittings a little bit.


Shield buffer fits are no-brainers largely because there's no practical alternative, which these changes would do absolutely nothing to address. The fact is that a number of ships that are currently buffer fit lack the capacitor and slot layouts required for active shield tanking, and on top of that it's essentially impossible to make an active tank soak up useful quantities of damage without using deadspace mods, crystal implants, and boosting alts.

I spend a lot of my time doing small gang work, and the fact is that even in those scenarios (which is where active tanking is supposed to shine), active tanking is not practical at all. You don't have the slots to do it and fit prop and tackle mods. You don't have the capacitor to run the boosters. If you use injection, you lose another midslot to that, sacrificing even more tanked dps or tackle. And even if you did have the cap and the slots, you'd still (in most cases) only expect to tank one opposing ship's DPS, if that. Active tanking is just ******* awful for PvP when considering any kind of remotely "accessible" setup.
NiM Cal
Supernatural Penguins
#178 - 2012-04-23 22:08:26 UTC
Dumb and illogical change, imo. Most active tanking shield setups use resistence rigs over rep rigs, it's rare to actually see anyone use solidifiers, so good job reducing the mobility of solo/small gang Cyclones/Sleipnirs etc. Similarly a lot of smaller active armor ships, which do use rep rigs, rely on low signature (like the Stabber Fleet Issue). Removing the uniqueness of armor vs shield is also pretty sad, what next, all guns shooting the same ranges/doing the same damage?

My ideal solution would be to have rigs emulate modules of a similar nature (like they kinda do now, but moreso):

Extender rigs should boost your sig (like shield extenders), Trimarks should slow you down (like plates).

Resistence rigs (like passive hardeners) should have no penalty, same with rep rigs (like boost amps).

Poly/Thrust rigs should match Nanos/OD's, etc.

My proposed change would actually benefit active tanking, particularly armor.
DeadNite
SecTor 8E
#179 - 2012-04-23 22:12:42 UTC
When looking at this question semi-holistically, I have to ask what we are trying to accomplish. I know "re-balance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat" was said, but it is not an easy discussion to have especially when wrapping the end with "while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses."

This leads us to talking about rigs. More specifically, talking about the penalty of rigs in regards to active or passively tanking. The problem with this is that the penalty of the rigs reflects the penalty of the type of tanking in question (Armor vs. shield). If you were to (for example) change it so that Buffer tanks were slow and active tanks were fast, you would have to do more than change rigs (not that this has been mentioned one way or the other), you would have to develop a new philosophy on how tanks are treated in general. So let’s take a look at some characteristics (not a complete list).

Armor Tanks
- Plates/Rigs decrease ship speed and agility
- Non-regenerative HP
- No resist hole
- Implants allow larger buffer tanks
- Influential modules use low/high slots
- Adaptive modules give significant bonus to resist but are passive

Shield Tanks
- Extenders/Rigs increase ship signature radius
- Regenerative HP
- EM resist hole
- Implants allow larger active tanks
- Influential modules use low/med/high slots
- Adaptive modules give significant bonus to resist but are active
- Tend to have low damage output due to more focus on low slot usage or gun fitting requirements.

Active tanks
- Cap intensive
- Can intake a moderate amount of damage for a potentially fixed amount of time.
- Limited buffer
- Limited low/med slots due to tanking module requirements
- Low signature radius and agility penalties
- Limited mobility due to tank/cap/ewar/propulsion mod usage

Passive tanks
- Not cap intensive
- Can intake large fixed amount of damage
- Limited regenerative abilities
- More low/med slots due to tanking module requirements
- High signature radius and agility penalties
- High mobility due to tank/cap/ewar/propulsion mod usage
- Tend to have higher damage output due to less focus on low slot usage or gun fitting requirements.

This only being a small portion of the characteristics for each you would have to consider things like: Should shield extenders behave more like armor plates lowering your ships agility and speed instead of bloating your ships sig radius. You would have to look at an armor crystal implant variant and a shield slave variant (Should also balance how they impact capital warfare since there is currently an imbalance with crystals currently being completely useless on capitals). With this new philosophy in mind would we then have to look at each ships base agility/speed/sig.radius?

This quickly becomes a discussion about how you feel current tanking mechanics are working in EVE versus how you want them to work. I personally active tanking works fine in small engagements (<10). It is only when the incoming DPS is so high that your small buffer is exhausted before you can cycle a repairer.

So, at the end of all of this we come full circle. What do you REALLY want to discuss?
Wukulo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#180 - 2012-04-23 22:14:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Wukulo
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno.

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.

Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing.


Rig list:


  • Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction rig
  • Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig



EDIT: As mentioned here, this is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has started, this is just a concept that was passed along and that we wanted to discuss early on before proceeding further. Tweaked first paragraph on this post to reflect that, apologies for the confusion.


The idea that resistance is only for passive tanking is so laughable. It is absolutely crucial for any style of tanking if this change is representative of future design concepts then active tanking will need to start repping A LOT more per cycle than it does now. Assuming that more changes are made to separate resistances from that strategy.

Posted on main because I'm not a coward like the rest of you.