Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:22:00 -
[361] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote: I guess it is 100%+100%+88%+57% = 345% here.
Why? That would be the only place in EVE where a combined bonus would be calculated in this way... |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
478
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:25:00 -
[362] - Quote
Johnny Aideron wrote:Fozzie can you explain why you consider a hull bonus for recieved remote reps to be OP? I mean there is already a bonus to remote reps in the game it is called armor/shield resistance bonuses.
Hypothetical example: Imagine a 25 man gang (with 20 dps ships and 5 logi) vs an identical gang. Each dps ship does 500 dps while each logi reps about 300 armor points/s. The only difference between them is that one gang has a 37.5% bonus to recieved remote armor repairs while the other gang has a 25% bonus to armor resists.
Both gangs put out 10,000 DPS (before resists are taken into account) and rep 1500 dps. How does the different hull bonuses affect each gang? Well firstly the gang with resist bonuses reduces incoming damage by 25%, so the other sides DPS is reduced by 2500dps. Whereas the other gang get a boost to it's remote reps so their incoming repairs are increased by 562.5 dps.
So even with a hypothetical bonus to recieved reps the resistance bonused ships win out.
Under the fairly sensible assumption that a fleet brings more dps than logi, then the armour resistance bonus ends up being much more useful in fleets than this bonus to recieved reps. Furthermore: *Resistance bonused ships tend to have an extra low or mid for tanking, whereas active tanking ships tend to have a less focused slot layout, forcing one to either sacrifice tank or dps. *Resistance bonused ships get better as the fleet scales up whereas active tankers get progressively worse even with this proposed active rep bonus. *Resistance bonused ships are less vulnerable to volley damage on top of getting more remote reps
Even so, if the bonus turned out to be too strong you could always lessen the bonus to 3-5% for remote reps (and leave 7.5% bonus for active tanking). I just don't see why it's OP.
Because making a T1 ship that doesn't work without logistics would be bad? |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
578
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:29:00 -
[363] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Concerning math....
If I combine 3 Rigs that each give 100% bonus to the overheat bonus, what is going to happen?
Stacking: 1. 100% 2. 88% 3. 57% (roughly)
which means the combined bonus is: 2 x 1,88 x 1,57 = 5,9
multiply the 10% rep amount by 5,9 => 59% bonus to rep amount. Nice.
multiply the 15% ROF bonus by 5,9 => 88,5% bonus to ROF. OmgwtfBBQop....wh000t?
Does that mean 8,7times as many cycles or am I somehow completely wrong?
Would mean: AAR loaded, overheated, 3 Rigs: like 2.25 x 1.59 x 8.7 = 31times the rep amount of a T1 repper (8.7times the cap usage plus the cap boosters). or in other news: push that button to instantly trade aall your cap, a molten repper and half a cargohold full of cap boosters a for a fully restored armor...
The correct way to calculate the effect of 3x overcharger rigs and overloading is likely
1x + 1x + 0.87x + 0.57x = 3.44x
Substitute x for 10% to get the repair bonus, substitute x for 15% to get the cycle time reduction.
34.4% repair bonus -51.6% cycle time
Overloaded repair/sec: 1.344 / (1-0.516) = 2.77x
Substitute x for the repair/sec of the repair module. A medium armor rep I repairs 36.66 per second. Overloaded with 3x overcharge rigs it would be 101.81 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
154
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:33:00 -
[364] - Quote
These changes are kind of uninteresting. I'll withhold judgement until there's another pass at them, if there is one. |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:34:00 -
[365] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ancillary Armor Repairer
Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end. Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded) Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads Limited to one per ship [/list]
Quick Q&A about the AAR: Why limited to one per ship?The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR. Why keep the cap use consistent?The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further. Why not just buff all armor reps?One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.
I am not sure I understand this correctly. I will demonstrate how I understand this. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I will use medium size T1 module (with no skill modification). The module when active without cap booster loaded uses 160GJ of capacitor and delivers 240*0.75 = 180 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. When the module is loaded with 50, 75 or 100 size cap boster charges (9 of them) it will use 160GJ of capacitor and deliver 540 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. After all cap booster charges are used it will either turn off and go to 1 minute reload cycle or it will run with lower efficiency.
In short to operate medium AAR the cruiser or battlecruiser needs to have also medium capacitor booster. It also implies that you need to carry two size of boosters in your cargohold to (i.e 50 an 800).
I personally like the changes to the plates and rigs. I will adapt to the higher PG requirement (even though standard dual AR fit is tight on PG and generally requires lower gun tier). But having to carry two size of capacitor booster charges is kind of odd.
|
Krell Kroenen
Miners In Possession
115
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:34:00 -
[366] - Quote
So instead of working within the bounds of the existing system the answer is to throw more skills and modules at armor tanking. I guess that is one way of adding "new" content to the game. The skill to reduce plate mass will help but I can't say training for it will be all that thrilling. It just seems like a bandaid to correct one of the short comings of armor tanking, but now it's a feature since I get to spend training time to lessen a bad design element. And now I am reminded why skill books are one of the largest isk sinks in the game.
Also the AAR seems like a gimic that pretty much plucks out varity since it will be the must have module on your active tanking ship. And here I was hoping for active armor tanking to be more viable in general when I saw the title of Armor Tanking 2.0. As for the rig changes, they appear to help some while hurting others so their view of an improvement would be in the eye of the user as with most things.
Over all I guess there will be a rash of AAR fited ships running a muck after this goes lives and CCP will claim armor tanking as being fixed. But I can't help but feel that these changes are a copout to getting their hands dirty and doing a proper reworking of armor tanking. A ill fitted bandaid to a wound that really needs surgery if
|
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Heavy Industries Sick N' Twisted
246
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:34:00 -
[367] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Ancillary capacitor booster, ftw! +1 Ancillary Cap Booster MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:36:00 -
[368] - Quote
So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side... |
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:37:00 -
[369] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote:Sinzor Aumer wrote:Unkind Omen wrote:CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times. No. Just remember once and for all - now you're cargohold-tanking. Not that realman-ish like hull tanking, but sure even more dumb. That's not fair, I want some cargo space for loot! Why should I get no loot if target is unable to protect itself?
Hey, Armour tanker have enough lowslots for some Cargohold Extenders.
But an extra cargo container for charges and ammunition would be nice, also then most ship would have less cargo then the Amarr ships now have... And this means that again some other guys would complain... Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut |
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:39:00 -
[370] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...
A sig reduction would be fair, but the rest... Are you serious? Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
478
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:44:00 -
[371] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side...
Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better..
Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable..
Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved... |
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
26
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:47:00 -
[372] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote: Because making a T1 ship that doesn't work without logistics would be bad?
They would still have a bonus to their own armor repairers. The skill could be changed to "7.5% bonus to armor repair and recieved armor repair amount per level". |
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:48:00 -
[373] - Quote
Fozzie, please concider adding the following bonus to Nanobot Overcharger: simultaneous reduction of heat damage by the same 30%.
Thanks! |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:49:00 -
[374] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side... Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better.. Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable.. Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved...
I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Armor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking.
You can try pull you BS anbout me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with OP buffed armor tank...
Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then... |
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:52:00 -
[375] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ancillary Armor Repairer
Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end. Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded) Same cycle time and fittings as T1 reps Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads Limited to one per ship [/list]
Quick Q&A about the AAR: Why limited to one per ship?The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR. Why keep the cap use consistent?The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further. Why not just buff all armor reps?One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.
I am not sure I understand this correctly. I will demonstrate how I understand this. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will use medium size T1 module (with no skill modification). The module when active without cap booster loaded uses 160GJ of capacitor and delivers 240*0.75 = 180 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. When the module is loaded with 50, 75 or 100 size cap boster charges (9 of them) it will use 160GJ of capacitor and deliver 540 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. After all cap booster charges are used it will either turn off and go to 1 minute reload cycle or it will run with lower efficiency. In short to operate medium AAR the cruiser or battlecruiser needs to have also medium capacitor booster. It also implies that you need to carry two size of boosters in your cargohold to (i.e 50 an 800).
With most armour tanks you don-Št repair the whole time, are you? Because most of them buffer can buffer enough damage to so that you normally try to keep your armour hp above 50 % and turn off the reppers once you reach 95 %. So you burst rep 4860 HP with 9 charges and then must reload and hope you won-Št get killed in this 60 sec. Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut |
Rick Rymes
Caldari Advanced Technology Corporation
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:57:00 -
[376] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side... Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better.. Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable.. Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved... I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Ammor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking. You can try pull you BS anbout me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with OP buffed armor tank... Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then...
I would love to live in your world for a minute, ignorance is bliss.
But i will humor you. I will fly a Breacher and you fly a Punisher.
By your logic the Punisher will win because would you know it, armor tanking is OP.
I will go on a limb and say you fly shield not armor, and as a result have never had the issue of a faster, harder hitting enemy fly endlessly around you hitting you with greater range.
The very idea that a armor boat could possibly keep pace with a shield boat and rep as much is just to OP
|
Sofia Wolf
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
147
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:00:00 -
[377] - Quote
Hey Fozz could you give us 1200 mm armor plates? Please, pretty please, with sugar on top. |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:01:00 -
[378] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Keko Khaan wrote:So while i like these armor buffs.. Fact is after drake and tengu hml nerf ahacs and armor tank are OP. So while your making allready OP armor tanking even more OP. When we can exept some balancing in means of buffing shield tanking? Can we also have skill that reduces shield tanks sig radius penalty? Ancillary boosters we allready have on shield side... Armor tanking is being buffed because shield tanking was so much better.. Also Tengu/drake got a massive HAM buff with the HML nerf.. as well as making javs usable.. Really thinking armor is overpowered and that shield rigs/modules need to have their penalty decreased... Really that just means that you don't really understand the mechanics involved... I know what happened to hml and hams so you dont need to tell me that. Youre the one who dont understand game mechanics. Ammor tanking is getting huge buff which makes it OP towards shield tanking. Im talking about the skill that reduces armor tanking penalty. Thats why we need skill that reduces shield tanking sig radius penalty to make shield tanking balanced towards armor tanking. You can try pull you BS anbout me not knowing game mechanics but fact is your just want to pwn shield tank ships with OP buffed armor tank... Soo L2P 1st and come back on forums then... I would love to live in your world for a minute, ignorance is bliss. But i will humor you. I will fly a Breacher and you fly a Punisher. By your logic the Punisher will win because would you know it, armor tanking is OP. I will go on a limb and say you fly shield not armor, and as a result have never had the issue of a faster, harder hitting enemy fly endlessly around you hitting you with greater range. The very idea that a armor boat could possibly keep pace with a shield boat and rep as much is just to OP
Armor tanking downside is mass penalty on plates and rigs while shield tanks have sig radius penalty on shield extenders and rigs. Now if ccp gives skill that reduces armor tanking downside but doesnt make skill that would reduce shield tanks downside. Yes it makes armor tanking OP towards shield tanking.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3517
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:04:00 -
[379] - Quote
Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Dzajic
109
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:11:00 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced.
Can you please also reconsider Incursus nerf till further notice? It would be terrible shame if AARs got delayed or changed to something more reasonable and the little frig got its bonus nerfed for no reason. Please! :( |
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:11:00 -
[381] - Quote
Griffin Omanid wrote:Shpenat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Ancillary Armor Repairer statistics
I am not sure I understand this correctly. I will demonstrate how I understand this. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will use medium size T1 module (with no skill modification). The module when active without cap booster loaded uses 160GJ of capacitor and delivers 240*0.75 = 180 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. When the module is loaded with 50, 75 or 100 size cap boster charges (9 of them) it will use 160GJ of capacitor and deliver 540 HP at the end of 12 seconds cycle. After all cap booster charges are used it will either turn off and go to 1 minute reload cycle or it will run with lower efficiency. In short to operate medium AAR the cruiser or battlecruiser needs to have also medium capacitor booster. It also implies that you need to carry two size of boosters in your cargohold to (i.e 50 an 800). With most armour tanks you don-Št repair the whole time, are you? Because most of them can buffer enough damage to so that you normally try to keep your armour hp above 50 % and turn off the reppers once you reach 95 %. So you burst rep 4860 HP with 9 charges and then must reload and hope you won-Št get killed in this 60 sec.
You are describing burst tanking. That is fine. The problem I see is you need two size of cap booster charges and cap booster to do it.
The question is why cap booster charges?
Races specialized in armour tanking (Amarr, Gallente) mostly use cap dependent weapon systems (lasers, hybrids). On the other hand shield tanking races (Minmatar, Caldari) has a lot of ships designed for capless guns (projectiles, missiles). ASB hence makes a lot of sense as it drops the requirement for capacitor booster and frees one slot.
With AAR the things you need to have in your cargohold: ammo, largest possible cap booster charges for cap booster. smallest possible cap charges for AAR, nanite repair paste to repair overheated modules. Quite a lot of stuff... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3523
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:14:00 -
[382] - Quote
Dzajic wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced. Can you please also reconsider Incursus nerf till further notice? It would be terrible shame if AARs got delayed or changed to something more reasonable and the little frig got its bonus nerfed for no reason. Please! :(
We're not going to apply the Incursus change if significant parts of this proposal get delayed, don't worry. They go hand in hand. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
306
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:14:00 -
[383] - Quote
Shpenat wrote: With AAR the things you need to have in your cargohold: ammo, largest possible cap booster charges for cap booster. smallest possible cap charges for AAR, nanite repair paste to repair overheated modules. Quite a lot of stuff...
I was under the impression that one cycle only pulls the required amount of cap from the loaded booster? |
Rick Rymes
Caldari Advanced Technology Corporation
40
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:15:00 -
[384] - Quote
Keko Khaan wrote: Ignorance seems indeed to bless for people like urself but let me explain it to you.
Armor tanking downside is mass penalty on plates and rigs while shield tanks have sig radius penalty on shield extenders and rigs. Now if ccp gives skill that reduces armor tanking downside but doesnt make skill that would reduce shield tanks downside. Yes it makes armor tanking OP towards shield tanking.
What you say is honorable but factor this in.
We don't want a skill that reduces mass penalty
The fact that an armor tanker has to train a skill to reduce a disadvantage that a alternate system does not have is plain unfair.
And that's not taking into account that the sig penalty is very slight when compared to the mass/speed penalty
What would make it fair is if there was no mass/speed penalty to begin with OR shield mods/rigs had the same speed/mass penalty, which not only makes sense since it means speed tanking becomes a more independent way of fitting a ship.
If CCP do decide to continue with this path then yes maybe a pointless skill to reduce shield sig penalty can be bezzie mate with the equally pointless mass penalty reduction skill |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:15:00 -
[385] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced.
Sad panda face
That rig was actually looking quite promising. |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:16:00 -
[386] - Quote
Buffer tanks just work better than active reps because more people are involved in the fights these days with a bigger server population as well as the dps from each ship has increased a lot the last few years easily overcoming active tanks...
Shield buffers work better than armor buffer for other reasons than a direct comparison: Buffer and RR proofed to be win - but armor rr is dealyed making it a problem with bigger numbers. Shield buffer work better because you don't need to rep up between fights if you have time to wait. Armor buffer can't keep up and dictate range against shield buffer fleets - and speed is important (hence we had a nano nerf) Shield has become in favour because it allows damage mods going full gank. full gank with numbers are better than heavily tanked armor buffers with little dps. This is a result of more people fighting.
So don't go flat out thinking shield buffer is better than armor buffer on a 1 to 1 comparison. It's the added benefits when you have large numbers that gives the image of shield fleets we have today...
Pinky |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
371
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:19:00 -
[387] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced.
How about you pull the entire proposal and go ahead and fix existing core issues rather than applying band aid lazy developer fixes.
simply not impressed.
|
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:20:00 -
[388] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote: I was under the impression that one cycle only pulls the required amount of cap from the loaded booster?
No. The idea is to use cap from your capacitor AND consume another capacitor booster charge (probably small one) to give the augmented rep amount.
|
Jame Jarl Retief
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
975
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:22:00 -
[389] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Over all I guess there will be a rash of AAR fited ships running a muck after this goes lives and CCP will claim armor tanking as being fixed. But I can't help but feel that these changes are a copout to getting their hands dirty and doing a proper reworking of armor tanking. An ill fitted bandage to a wound that really needs surgery if you will.
A lot of folks seem to share this same sentiment. I was talking to someone about this last night, and he said that CCP modus operandi lately has been to put the cart before the horse, then do unspeakable things to the horse, then the cart, and then chalk it up as working as intended and not speak of it again for 5 years out of sheer embarrassment.
And I agree about the new skill. It's nice and all, but is this something that EVE needs? More skills? Especially since you just added four sensor compensation skills a month ago? Is this really what you want a new player to see? More skills? And with the Destroyer/BC split coming in next expansion, and older players getting basically "free" 6 million or so SP that a newbie joining too late to train these will have to train for later at the cost of several months of training time? Is this really making the game better in any way, shape or form? How? |
Keko Khaan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
112
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:23:00 -
[390] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:Keko Khaan wrote: Ignorance seems indeed to bless for people like urself but let me explain it to you.
Armor tanking downside is mass penalty on plates and rigs while shield tanks have sig radius penalty on shield extenders and rigs. Now if ccp gives skill that reduces armor tanking downside but doesnt make skill that would reduce shield tanks downside. Yes it makes armor tanking OP towards shield tanking.
What you say is honorable but factor this in. We don't want a skill that reduces mass penalty The fact that an armor tanker has to train a skill to reduce a disadvantage that a alternate system does not have is plain unfair. And that's not taking into account that the sig penalty is very slight when compared to the mass/speed penalty What would make it fair is if there was no mass/speed penalty to begin with OR shield mods/rigs had the same speed/mass penalty, which not only makes sense since it means speed tanking becomes a more independent way of fitting a ship. If CCP do decide to continue with this path then yes maybe a pointless skill to reduce shield sig penalty can be bezzie mate with the equally pointless mass penalty reduction skill
Well yea i can agree with this.. And yea maybe mass penalty is bit rough compared to sig penalty. But to give another skill that reduces its penalty while not giving anything to other..
But then again if we compare lets say zealot fleet with logi support vs vaga fleet with logi support. Which is stronger? Yea hard to say depends on situation i guess...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |