Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Call me crazy, but I'm kinda getting the impression that CCP Devs really hate Armor.
Like... really... hate... armor...
ASB In General - Fit as many as you want, we don't give a crap. Oh, and while they're loaded with charges, they are Capless. So use 2-3 and offset the reloads for RIDICULOUS PERMATANK!!!1!1!one!
Small ASB - 8x Cap 25s = 3200 ISK to load. Medium ASB - 8x Cap 50s = 8000 ISK Large ASB - 8x Cap 150s = 24,800 ISK XL ASB - 8x Cap 400 = 32,000 ISK
AAB In General - Only fit 1 at a time. Sorry, you're not cool like Shields. Oh, and regardless of charges, you still burn Cap. Sucks if you get neuted, but you knew that anyway.
Small AAB - 8x Nanite Paste = 30,000 ISK (as much as loading an XL ASB) Medium AAB - 32x Nanite Paste = 120,000 ISK Large AAB - 64x Nanite Paste = 240,000 ISK XL AAB... oh wait, doesn't exist.
First off, whose idea was it to burn Paste? A rather rare and valuable [strike]Farmville[/strike] Planetary Interaction commodity.
Then add in the continued Cap draw. Justified as "we don't want armor tanking to be like shields"
And tack on "limited to one" just for extra oomph. Justified as "we saw how powerful that made ASBs, and rather than go fix ASB, we're going to pre-nerf AABs" |
Whitehound
833
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
They are also removing the passive resists on all hardeners (shield + armor). This means all tanks will become more sensitive to cap warfare.
The AAR seems to require only little extra cargo space for its nanites and most of the cargo space can still be used for cap charges to feed a cap booster.
The ASB will have to share cap charges with a cap booster and cargo space becomes a limiting factor.
It appears the AAR was not implemented as a 1:1 counter to the ASB, but rather is the more enduring version of it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
521
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
You must be the only person who uses T1 cap charges in a large or XL ASB. |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
242
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nope dev's don't hate armour.
They deffinately don't want to make arour tanking the same a shield tanking that is all.
You are comparing car to motorbikes because they bothe have engines and wheels and operate on the road. They are different and opperate differently yet both do a similar job (get you from A to B)
Get over it allready. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
740
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 01:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Forget paste cost. Compared to XL ASB, LAAR repairs less, needs more grid, and oh yeah, consumes cap. It consumes cap, lol. What's the point of this again?
Of course, it's unfair to compare XL to L, after all, one fits better. I like how Winmatar BCs can easily fit XL ASB with plenty of room to spare, using no cap, while Myrm is stuck with medium sized AARs because larges don't fit, and proceeds to cap itself out.
Hey, anyone remember the Reactive Hardner? It's gonna have company. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 01:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm thinking of taking up full-time shield tanking. It's not because I think shield tanking is all that much better, it is purely so I can no longer be associated by these whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I mean good god people, can't you just imagine the same thread as a tantrum from a 3 year old, complete with stamping of feet and screaming?
Grow up. |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Over-entitled, what?
Shields have passive regen. Shields have active omni resist mods. Shields leave plenty of space for damage mods.
Oh, and more on topic... Shields can throw as many ASB as they want on a ship, chain the reloads, and tank forever...
Yeah, Armor guys are living it up... |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!!
And I only use a single repper and no cap boost!
Armour is fine and getting better! If you don't know how to do it properly then go find out rather than whinging on the forums! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:Over-entitled, what?
Shields have passive regen. - Armour has bigger buffer Shields have active omni resist mods. - Armour has passive omni-resist mods. Shields leave plenty of space for damage mods. - Armour leaves plenty of room for EWAR.
Oh, and more on topic... Shields can throw as many ASB as they want on a ship, chain the reloads, and tank forever... - Assuming by 'forever' you mean until they run out of cap charges
Yeah, Armor guys are living it up...
I said you're whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I also compared you to a 3 year old throwing a tantrum. My other responses in bold. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
186
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 06:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. |
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
743
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon.
You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? Because some people still use reps, and an AAR reps ~67% better than a T2 repper, even if for just 30-60 seconds? |
To mare
Advanced Technology
169
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? because they are damn good especially with the other changes made to rigs and fitting requirements, still dont see the problem of seeing nanite paste price going to the roof |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
244
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
nanite paste is expensive because the demand isn't high enough to push production.
They have already stated that they may look at the requirements to make it so chill and see what happens when there is a higher demand for it.
Higher demand Initial higher prices Higher manufacturing to follow demand/prices prices will stablise to match supply demand curve.
How markets work! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Elena Thiesant
Sun Micro Systems
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 08:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:First off, whose idea was it to burn Paste? A rather rare and valuable [strike]Farmville[/strike] Planetary Interaction commodity.
Several players who commented in the thread in F&I. The initial design of the AAR (which can be seen in the quote in https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2499731#post2499731) used cap charges. Several players asked that the charge be changed to nantite paste.
Starting here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2499345#post2499345 |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
127
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
I do think that AARs will be used less than ASBs were when they were first deployed...
But I think they will be an ancillary module rather than a primary. I envisage armour ships which normally run dual rep (or triple rep) set-ups loading a cap booster (because rep, blasters and lasers...) a T2 rep (or two) and then their AAR. Most of the time they'll run on the chargeless, efficient, T2 rep but when that isn't enough then the AAR kicks in and gives them three times the rep they had.
I'm imagining quad rep Myrms (effectively), triple rep Brutix and Hyperions... Fortunately I'm not imagining dual rep heavy plated Abaddons - that would just be painful... |
chris elliot
EG CORP Talocan United
132
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Paikis wrote:I'm thinking of taking up full-time shield tanking. It's not because I think shield tanking is all that much better, it is purely so I can no longer be associated by these whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I mean good god people, can't you just imagine the same thread as a tantrum from a 3 year old, complete with stamping of feet and screaming?
Grow up.
Dude, its ships and modules. 99% of the drivel in here is people stamping their feet and screaming. |
Whitehound
838
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 10:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? Why should anyone tell you?!
Shield tankers cannot fit modules like tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners and ECM jammers or just an ECCM. A single tracking disruptor with range disruption script reduces the DPS of projectile weapons by half! What is there left to tank?! To counter it do you need 2 TEs in the lows for what an armor tanker only needs a single mid-slot. Maybe you want us to tank your tears when a set of ECM drones are jamming you again... So the ASB needs to be better, because otherwise you could not fit MWD, web+scram, cap booster and still have a tank. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
574
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 12:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!!
You show an example of what a terrible balance is, you know the 10% is getting a nerf stick to 7.5%.
And your example doesn't prove on anything armor tanking is balanced, very far from there, the only armor tanking that got a real good buff is buffer tanking = aka Amarr.
1v1 fights and lol duels incoming got buff? -hell yeah, awesome... *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
798
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 12:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
OP is forgetting that active tanking armour rigs are being changed by trading off speed penalty for repper's grid penalty, and armour reppers are getting their grid usage dropped to compensate. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
574
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 13:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:OP is forgetting that active tanking armour rigs are being changed by trading off speed penalty for repper's grid penalty, and armour reppers are getting their grid usage dropped to compensate.
It's getting better? -yes
Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no
Before even introducing AARs old modules should have been balanced correctly: frigates/destroyers balance=small mods balance and so on so forth. Then add new modules to offer more options? -yes but those should not be mandatory, this is the problem I have with this current armor balancing method. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
798
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 14:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no
wait, isn't like, armour rig 1 pretty much mandatory already? and doesn't this sorta fix some of the armor rigs too? [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Serptimis
The Fiction Factory Tribal Band
130
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 14:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no wait, isn't like, armour rig 1 pretty much mandatory already? and doesn't this sorta fix some of the armor rigs too? I think he means the honeycombing skill which reduces mass of plates, pretty much going to be a must have skill. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1997
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 15:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
What he means that old armor reppers are still as inefficient as before, so all new active armor fits will use the AARs - "mandatory" mod.
So how good it is then? Depends on the ship. On Incursus, looks sweet. Because SARs were already sweet, perfectly viable on frigates. Even on unbonused hulls.
LAAR on triple rep Hyperion and MAAR on triple rep Myrm look very sweet. Dual and MAAR+800mm plate fits on cruisers look very interesting.
But MAAR on dual rep fits on either Brutix or Myrm are still only as good as a single XLASB, because base level of medium armor reppers is not enough on BC class. Sigs are huge especially on these hulls (why, idk), and incoming damage much higher.
Maybe they should rename LARs to XLARs, and introduce BC-sized armor reppers, or then just buff the Gallente BC hull bonuses to 10%. There's the armor Cane, however, which would not benefit from touching only Gal hulls. Yeah I know crazy idea, that you could actually active tank something else than a Myrm or Prophecy!
And fix the broken ASB fittings.
My idea of tank balance:
Shield tanks: more damage, mobility, cap-free, less tank Armor tanks: less damage, mobility, cap-intensive, more tank, utility mid
Currently shields have more tank because of oversized mods. When the fittings are fixed, ASBs should be buffed slightly to remain competitive.
This is active tanking obv, on buffer side things are nicely balanced, especially with the 1.1 plate mass reductions.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
799
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 15:46:00 -
[25] - Quote
Serptimis wrote:Grimpak wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no wait, isn't like, armour rig 1 pretty much mandatory already? and doesn't this sorta fix some of the armor rigs too? I think he means the honeycombing skill which reduces mass of plates, pretty much going to be a must have skill. that I can agree.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1037
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 16:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
ASB fittings are really only broken with the X-L variety.
MASB? I don't see it that much anymore. It only gets seven charges as there are no small navy cap charges. I would only put it on a ship with a shield resist or boost bonus.
LASB? Does anyone use these or do they skip to the X-L? |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 20:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!! You show an example of what a terrible balance is, you know the 10% is getting a nerf stick to 7.5%. And your example doesn't prove on anything armor tanking is balanced, very far from there, the only armor tanking that got a real good buff is buffer tanking = aka Amarr. 1v1 fights and lol duels incoming got buff? -hell yeah, awesome...
LOL
If you didn't get the sarcasm in my post you need to train your reading empathy skill to lvl 5 mate.
And if you think a single SAR incursus is an example of unbalanced armour tanking in small ships Then is suggest you have neither fought of flown them!
Armour tanking is fine and is getting better. Especially for medium/small ship classes. I generall don't comment on bigger classes cos I don't fly them often and real DGAF about them either.
Seriously just leave for even suggesting anything about 'duels' CCP just remade the can flip mechanic to siut crimewatch. I never mentioned 1v1 or any such crap. I rarely get them and often end up outgunned. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 20:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!! You show an example of what a terrible balance is, you know the 10% is getting a nerf stick to 7.5%. And your example doesn't prove on anything armor tanking is balanced, very far from there, the only armor tanking that got a real good buff is buffer tanking = aka Amarr. 1v1 fights and lol duels incoming got buff? -hell yeah, awesome... LOL If you didn't get the sarcasm in my post you need to train your reading empathy skill to lvl 5 mate. And if you think a single SAR incursus is an example of unbalanced armour tanking in small ships Then I suggest you have neither fought of flown them! Armour tanking is fine and is getting better. Especially for medium/small ship classes. I generall don't comment on bigger classes cos I don't fly them often and real DGAF about them either. Seriously just leave for even suggesting anything about 'duels' CCP just remade the can flip mechanic to siut crimewatch. I never mentioned 1v1 or any such crap. I rarely get them and often end up outgunned.
That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
104
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 21:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
So far I've seen 2 pages of weak arguments trying to say "Hey, don't bash on Armor tanking. It's good already... I mean, it's not Shield Tanking, but it's getting better"
So far, few have addressed my initial complaints (other than saying I should just get over it and quit whining)
- Shield ships can fit SEVERAL ASB, while Armor ships will be hard locked to using just 1 AAB. Again, CCP admits multiple ASB made shields very powerful. But rather than go back and hard lock ASB, they just pre-nerf AAB.
- Shield ASB are Capless, for no particular reason. Ordinary Shields Boosters aren't Capless, but they made a special exception. Ordinary Armor Reppers aren't Capless either, and CCP decided to "stick to their guns" in that regard.
- Shield ASB burn charges that cost as little as 400 ISK each. Armor AAB burn charges that cost 30,000 ISK each. I just went back and updated the OP, since I didn't factor the Paste costs right before. Maybe if people take a look at how expensive it is to run an AAB compared to an ASB... |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 21:13:00 -
[30] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:So far I've seen 2 pages of weak arguments trying to say "Hey, don't bash on Armor tanking. It's good already... I mean, it's not Shield Tanking, but it's getting better"
So far, few have addressed my initial complaints (other than saying I should just get over it and quit whining)
- Shield ships can fit SEVERAL ASB, while Armor ships will be hard locked to using just 1 AAB. Again, CCP admits multiple ASB made shields very powerful. But rather than go back and hard lock ASB, they just pre-nerf AAB.
- Shield ASB are Capless, for no particular reason. Ordinary Shields Boosters aren't Capless, but they made a special exception. Ordinary Armor Reppers aren't Capless either, and CCP decided to "stick to their guns" in that regard.
- Shield ASB burn charges that cost as little as 400 ISK each. Armor AAB burn charges that cost 30,000 ISK each. I just went back and updated the OP, since I didn't factor the Paste costs right before. Maybe if people take a look at how expensive it is to run an AAB compared to an ASB...
No there are two pages of people saying that shield tanking =/= armour tanking
And it shouldn't be the same! Stop comparing their modules directly with one another. This is the flaw in your arguments. A car is not a motorbike, 'yet it has wheel and drives on the road so it must be the same' is the argument that you are using.
From a game lore point of view shield use energy to repair or boost themselves so why wouldn't they use cap charges to provide a direct boost to shield in the same way they do the cap of a ship. Armour repairers use nanites to repair armour so why wouldn't they use it to give a direct boost to armour repairing modules. The cap usage is to provide the nanite energy to operate.
From a mechanic point of view the differences in resistances and how damage is applied to shields/armour has long been demonstrated by multiple ships having the same 'tank' either in terms of EHP buffer or passive regen or repair/boost yet one ship dies horribly and the other barely gets a scratch.
So just to be clear
Armour tanking =/= shield tanking stop trying to make them the same!
Giving a bike an extra wheel does not make it a car! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |