Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
467
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 14:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
This change is 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
|
|
backtrace
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
45
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 14:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shield rigs with penalty to velocity? lolwut?! Reconsider this, srsly.
P.S. First! |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
321
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 14:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Love it. Cynabals, Dramiels, and shield canes just took a hit. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
236
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
This is a good change, +1 respect and internetzspaceshiphonorpoints
while we are on it... what about modules? :) like... shield extenders vs armor plates? make shield extenders "drag" the ships speed down? to put them in line with plates? heh |
5antamus
TOHA Heavy Industries TOHA Conglomerate
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bad move, why would any form of shield mod slow you down when it has no mass ... ? Oh wait nothing in Eve makes sense And since when are resist rigs a purely passive thing? if you don't want to worsen your cap usage then they are a great alternative, you seriously need to re-think on this one |
Nex apparatu5
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
264
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ground floor of a whine thread |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
130
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
If you want to promote active tanking, make it useful. Don't penalize minmatar and gallente ships for trying to make the best of a bad situation. |
Emeos
BLOOM. Bloomswarm
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
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? |
Madlof Chev
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:09:00 -
[10] - Quote
There's a reason nobody uses active tanking, and that's because it's terrible. If you want people to active tank, fix it before you go slapping coping mechanisms with the nerf bat. |
|
Xiaodown
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
58
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
Oh, good. Now when I have my local rep on, I'll be easier to hit, and thus die faster. This makes me much more likely to active tank. |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
604
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. In today's world where active tanking is mostly useful in PvE and some very specific small-scale (primarily 1vs1) combat, this is basically saying that Amarr and Caldari should be good at most combat, while Gallente and Minmatar should be good at niche combat.
This change will not make Minmatar and Gallente use active tanking. It will primarily give Minmatar and Gallente pilots an incentive to train towards Amarr and Caldari.
You should reconsider the roles of active vs. passive tanking before tailoring races towards those. Specific problems you should consider here are terrible scaling of active tanking vs. fleet damage outputs as well as MWD vs. active tank cap needs for kiting Minmatar ships. |
Dysphonia Fera
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
I don't think I've been this mad in a while. Reducing speed on shield ships? Get out. Increasing sig to /encourage/ active tanking? How gorram high are you jesus christ |
doombreed52
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
:ccp: strikes again someone get the club time to break stuff weee! |
OninoTimmo
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
55
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
yea this is really going to encourage people to active tank their Cynabals, Machariels, and Dramiels |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
322
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
OninoTimmo wrote:yea this is really going to encourage people to active tank their Cynabals, Machariels, and Dramiels
The obvious angel ship nerf is the best part. |
Gallosek
Fer Lomarcan Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
There are really at least three categories of tanking: passive (shield with regen), buffer (armour or shield) AND active (armour or shield). I don't see many passive tanking fits used widely in PvP, but plenty of the latter two.
Resist rigs are used extensively on all three types of tanking:
- Passive tanks take less damage to regenerate from
- Buffer tanks gain a deeper EHP and can plug holes in natural resists to balance their EHP across damage types (especially if they are buffer fit with RR support)
- Active fits make their reps more effective by fitting resists, but then so do the above buffer tanks with RR.
HP rigs affect PVP mostly, but also high-end PvE where you need...
- a buffer to allow Remote Reps to take affect.
- or just enough time for the target to die.
Shield recharge obviously only affects passive tanks. There is no equivalent tanking option for armour ships (however when they lose in regen is usually balanced by higher raw HP and access to over-sized plates).
Local repair rigs obviously only affect active tanks.
Remote repair rigs affect active AND buffer fits (in gangs).
At the moment the distinction is straightforward. Shield for speed, armour for EHP survivability. It goes so far as fitting shield modules and rigs on "armour" ships where speed is needed, even if the paper figures look worse (e.g. the oracle). Yes, it would be nice to have fast armour ships, but as armour plates *also* add to mass (and therefore align, speed, etc), then with rigs you would have a worse speed AND worse signature radius. Shield extenders don't affect speed.
Another thing to consider is that there are other trade-offs between armour and shield. For shield ships you need to choose between tank, propulsion and utility (target painters, point, web) in your mid slots. For armour ships you gain utility, but have to choose between tank and damage mods, whereas shield ships can fill their lows for pew (and a suitcase).
I fly both armour and shield ships from frigate hulls through to battleship class vessels, and tailor my tactics as appropriate. For slow armour ships you just need to get a good warpin and a reliable tackler or three :) |
Rusty Kuntz
Pain Management Services
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
Yet another step to "ALL THE SAME" in eve online. Nice...
Gallosek wrote: I don't see many passive tanking fits used widely in PvP You're ********. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
179
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
The blind swap of penalties seems like it will cause more problems than it will fix. Here's an alternate suggestion, with explanations attached:
All Harder Rigs increase sig radius - the ship is more solid and shiny to targeting All Active Tanking Rigs increase active tank module CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful
Shield Extender Rigs decrease max velocity - thicker shields absorb more thrust Shield Fitting Rigs reduce the shield hp provided by the extenders - less power means less shield projected Shield Passive Recharge Rigs increase sig radius - rapid generation of shields is pops more
Armor Plate Rigs decrease max agility - heavier ships are harder to turn Armor Remote Rep Rigs increase the remote rep CPU/PG use - rig makes the modules more complex/powerful
Salvage Tackle Rigs should be under Astronautic or Electronics Superiority Rigs or something, they don't make sense here. And change them to reduce shield amount - sensors can get a better reading with less interference. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
272
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
I don't know what to make of this. I don't think that this change would necessarily "fix" active tanking, and additional changes are required to fix it, this could be an OK supplemental change.
Kudos for thinking outside the box though, and now people will have an reason to train the shield/armor rigging skills to 5. |
|
IamBeastx
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
So essentially, shield based ships like minmatar race ships, which have always been touted as being more speed and maneuverability based and from what i remember are also referenced in the rpg element of eve as being speed, based are getting a speed nerf for there shield based fitting choices. ubad |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
132
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
IamBeastx wrote:So essentially, shield based ships like minmatar race ships, which have always been touted as being more speed and maneuverability based and from what i remember are also referenced in the rpg element of eve as being speed, based are getting a speed nerf for there shield based fitting choices. ubad Even if you penalize me with a 90% percent speed cut for having the audacity to put an anti-em rig on a hurricane it would still be preferable to active tanking it in any setting outside pve and solo pvp. |
Lee Dalton
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:44:00 -
[23] - Quote
This is dumb and you are dumb for considering it. |
Tawa Suyo
The Tuskers
18
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:45:00 -
[24] - Quote
This just seems like arbitary homogenisation of shield vs armour tanking. Is there not supposed to be a noticeable difference between the two allowing for more choice and therefore deeper gameplay?
Treating resist rigs as passive rigs in terms of penalty also seems faintly ridiculous, they are far more heavily used in active tanking, shield especially.
I applaud the urge to make active tanking more desirable, however, these changes would do nothing to address the inherent weaknesses of active tanking. Namely the very binary level of strength (it's great until you add one more person than it can tank, then it falls over very rapidly) and it's high cap dependance.
By effectively nerfing the ability to kite with buffer fits and doing nothing to increase active fits ability to deal with large numbers (especially given the introduction of tier3 BCs with both incredibly high dps and damage projection) you are encouraging a game balanced around numerical superiority rather than skill or tactics. These changes effectively reduce the ability for smaller gangs to engage heavily outnumbered.
Is buffing the blob and forcing small gang/solo players to only fight other small gang/solo players really your intended design? If I wanted to play a game where I only engaged equal sized teams then I wouldn't be playing Eve... |
BABARR
PARABELUM-Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:46:00 -
[25] - Quote
It's not a bad idea for counter the nanoswarm, BUT it's totally ****** for "big" armor ship active tanked like hyperion, astarte, vindic, ect, it's already hard to active tank in this game, but now if these ship going to have a big signature, it's going to be MORE hard, and the velocity boost is just a big joke, cause these ship have a big ass, and can't outrun 90% of other pvp ship, with or whitout velocity malus. CCP, give MORE LOVE TO ACTIVE ARMOR TANKING ! |
Rara Yariza
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
Edit: other people said it better: Consider alpha strike, consider the reasons people fly fast kting ships: to counter blobs.
Tawa Suyo wrote:This just seems like arbitary homogenisation of shield vs armour tanking. Is there not supposed to be a noticeable difference between the two allowing for more choice and therefore deeper gameplay?
Treating resist rigs as passive rigs in terms of penalty also seems faintly ridiculous, they are far more heavily used in active tanking, shield especially.
I applaud the urge to make active tanking more desirable, however, these changes would do nothing to address the inherent weaknesses of active tanking. Namely the very binary level of strength (it's great until you add one more person than it can tank, then it falls over very rapidly) and it's high cap dependance.
By effectively nerfing the ability to kite with buffer fits and doing nothing to increase active fits ability to deal with large numbers (especially given the introduction of tier3 BCs with both incredibly high dps and damage projection) you are encouraging a game balanced around numerical superiority rather than skill or tactics. These changes effectively reduce the ability for smaller gangs to engage heavily outnumbered.
Is buffing the blob and forcing small gang/solo players to only fight other small gang/solo players really your intended design? If I wanted to play a game where I only engaged equal sized teams then I wouldn't be playing Eve... |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
101
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
no no no no NO NO NO.
You are effectively nerfing an entire tactic by making all buffer rigs have a velocity penalty.
90% of fast attack ships are shield tanked.
Due to the current state of the game if you are planning on flying any high-speed ship it is best to max out your tank including the use of shield extender rigs, other rigs do not offer enough to make them useful.
Are you honestly suggesting that you change the game so that anyone who wants to fly fast has to fit an active tank?
'But Djakku you could use gun/missile or speed rigs!'
You need to get off EFT and play the game.
If you're already going fast due to natural speed speed + mwd + nano, then velocity/agility rigs are only gonna make you go faster which isn't helpful, gun/missile rigs dont give enough boost as you've already stacked damage or tracking mods in your low slots because your shield tanked and you get dimishing returns for using those rigs.
lets take an example, a major threat from fast moving ships such as the Hurricane or Vagabond is the Drake, the Drakes damage projection is insane, you need TANK if you're planning on flying fast ships and keeping out of scram range, flying fast and kiting is literally "how long do I have to kill something before these lolheavymissiles force me to warp away" You are reducing that time.
I honestly don't see any need for this change at all, it's like a change for the sake of a change, other issues need to be addressed before changes like this are made, if somewhere in 0.0 some alliance is losing there sov because of 1200 capstable perma-mwding loldrakes is destroying stuff then you address that issue, dont affect the gameplay of your entire player base |
Max Butched
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:50:00 -
[28] - Quote
but look guyz, he just posting this so we can help him out figuring out how to do his job |
Conjaq
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
I for one would love to see active tanking, being more popular and better than it is now.
But i'm abit concerned on how these changes will do anything else than nerf shield buffer tanks. I'm sure you dev guys has more up in your sleeve, but active tanking need a way bigger boost in order to become even remotely meaningfull.
A good example is the 5% resist bonus on most t2 amarr ships, compared to the 7.5% armor repair bonus on the gallente ships.. If anything the repair bonus's should be doubled as right now 5% is superior in any way or form, better selfrep, better RR ... ect.
in short, you need to give more details on what you want to do with either tanking form... This "small" changes is taken out of contest and alone these changes seem crazy and illogical.
(even though shield buffered tanked ships definitely need a speed reduction)
MORE INFO!.... please.
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
323
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 15:59:00 -
[30] - Quote
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.
this, plus the obvious capacitor problems and the fact that active tanking is in general underpowered and a minor rig tweak won't fix that |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |