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) |
jm24
CRICE Corp Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:00:00 -
[31] - Quote
This change seems fine |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
133
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:01:00 -
[32] - Quote
Active tanking is about as useful as it can be. PvE and some niche solo fits and that's the ball game. Unless CCP can pull something truly revolutionary out of their bag it's done. It's over. You lost. Move on.
But stop trying to shoehorn active tanking into my life. |
Djakku
Pod Liberation Authority HYDRA RELOADED
101
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
WHATS MORE is why are you trying to turn this beautiful sandbox game into a class-based model?
Why do you want Amarr and Caldari to be stationary battleballs? Why can't people nano up their Zealots and Drakes?
Why do you want Minmatar and Gallente to be fast moving vessels? (lolwait Gallente?)
I've said it before, I'll say it again; these changes, along with the classification of ships such as "combat ship" "attack vessel" "support ship" and the name changes to modules are just stepping into the direction of World of Spaceships, how long is it gonna be before we chose what class we want to play in the character creator? -.-
tl;dr plz dont nerf my lol100mnautocannonscimitar |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
182
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
This is a poorly thought out change.
People do not actively tank in 99% of PvP situations because having a big buffer is almost always better. This is especially true whenever you have friends with remote reps.
Since sig radius is important to tanking, this change is not going to do anything to encourage people to actively rep in PvP. In PvE, where people do actively rep, this isn't going to change a damn thing, because the predominant rig there is the Capacitor Control Circuit. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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
nobody active tanks, ever, besides idiots and pve'ers, I hope this is helps your future balancing decisions |
Woo Glin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
534
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:04:00 -
[36] - Quote
What about the scythe? I mine in a scythe in 2-k and the rats always are killing my tank. Can it get a tank bonus and a mineing bonus at the same time? Also warp core stabs. |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
104
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
My active rokh fit has 3 res rigs.
CCP, you are bad and should feel bad. And the "active shield tank rigs" are very bad btw (but that's [was?] a nice difference between shield and armor). |
Mabego Tetrimon
Spiritus Draconis
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:07:00 -
[38] - Quote
read post #17
"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."
i would like to add a fourth tank, signature tanking (low sig, high speed)
that, before you (CCP) think of any change get your current status of tanking clear.... |
i hatechosingnames
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:08:00 -
[39] - Quote
Do CCP even play the game?
Are you making these changes to justify your job or do you actually think this will benefit the game?
If its the former - scrap this ****, if the later - play the game and realise you should scrap this ****. |
erittainvarma
Karjala Inc. The Polaris Syndicate
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:09:00 -
[40] - Quote
Erhm, you want ships that constantly uses MWD to use also active tank? God thank they all have like ridiculous amounts of extra capacitor lying around!
If you want to make them usable, either you need to cut mwd or shield booster / armor repairer cap usage or make cap boosters much smaller than they are currently. Or otherwise nano roams will be "one fight and then back to home to get more cap boosters". |
|
erittainvarma
Karjala Inc. The Polaris Syndicate
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
double |
BABARR
PARABELUM-Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:11:00 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: 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.
Stupidityyyyyyyyyyyyyyy by CCP TM.
For gallente : Old rig : -My gallente ship are not very fast, fitting them active armor tank just make me a bit more slower, it's not really a problem, the problems are : neutra, efficiency of the logistics, cap issue, and be one volley by alpha fleet, that why you see more passive tank.
New rig : -My gallente ship going to be only slow, and not "really slow", don't change anything in 90% of fight, the problems are : neutra, efficiency of the logistics, cap issue, AND be one volley by alpha fleet easier cause i have a WTF signature, taking MORE damage cause i have a WTF signature, and the velocity can't compensate that, taking MORE damage cause i have a WTF signature cause in a gallente blasterboat i have to use my MWD a lot.
So "active rig" going to f uck up my "active tanked" hyp/vindic/astarte, gratz CCP.
For minmatar : Old rig : -I fit resist rig on my maelstrom to have more resist, i have more sig, but the shield active tank is still nice.
New rig -I fit resist rig on my maelstrom to have more resist, i have less speed, but no matter, my AC got the range and i don't need speed, and now i don't nerf my sig, it's really cool.
So "passive rig" help more my "active tanked" maelstrom, gratz CCP. |
backtrace
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
55
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:13:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP should log in and do some PvP before generating their "balancing" ideas. Mining and listening to empire carebears doesn't count. God, how much more ******** can you go, CCP? |
Thecla Elarik
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:13:00 -
[44] - Quote
do not want |
guibio
SnaiLs aNd FroGs Waterboard
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:17:00 -
[45] - Quote
It's a bit late for an April Fools cpp ... |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
809
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:17:00 -
[46] - Quote
I like the speed nerf when fitting buffer rigs. The signature nerf for fitting active tank rigs just doesn't work. I do like to active tank frigates mostly, but never use any rigs that would fall under the type of tank at all.
If you really want to do these changes and have some people even remotely think about active tanking instead of buffer fit, you will simple have to not have any penalties at all on active tank rigs. Buffer tanks and alpha fleets are and will remain king even after these changes. The only way to address that is to have a game changer in how combat works in this game in how it scales with the number of people on the battlefield.
Still, it is worth saying that you guys have your heart in the right place. Thank you for that.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution IT Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:17:00 -
[47] - Quote
My one issue is active armor-repair rigs increasing sig. I like the idea of them not slowing down, but armor has always been the sig-tanking solution. vOv
Maybe an armor HP drawback?
Also, CDFE's should not slow as much as Trimarks, imho.
But yeah, I think these are interesting changes to say the least. |
Exitar Stormscion
Tr0pa de elite. G00DFELLAS
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
OH the noob drake and winmatar tears YES YES ! |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:19:00 -
[49] - Quote
this change basically kills tanking rigs completely
also, fyi ccp, no one uses active tank rigs because capacitor control circuits provide a superior benefit in literally every possible scenario
if you deleted all the active tanking rigs in the game tomorrow, no one but margin scammers would even notice |
Centra Spike
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
120
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:19:00 -
[50] - Quote
Is this another stop-gap fix because you guys literally have no idea what you're doing with your game? |
|
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
57
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
Well, it's about time the issues between active/passive tanking are addressed (including the ridiculous nature of all armor rigs restricting movement)! I also like the direction, but there are a few (unwanted?) side effects.
Have you considered Logistics? I assume from the list that their rigs (less cap for activation of remote repair/boost modules) will fall in the "active tanking" category, blowing up the sig size of the already relatively fragile ships that intentionally have small sigs. Shouldn't they get a speed reduction instead?
Generally this obviously won't fix the discrepancy in usefulness between active and passive tanking - I assume you know that. There are more changes coming, preferably in the same expansion? I guess (very) small scale PVP will get a boost out of using active tanks, it might even extend the gang size in which it can be used, but overall it won't allow for 10+ ship gangs to use active tanking (which is still relatively small). How are you planning to address this? |
zahg
Adeptus Iterare Mordus Angels
30
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
CCP joke no?
Maybe you need to go pvp a bit more on sisi or TQ dear GM's and ccp staff.... |
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:22:00 -
[53] - Quote
Why do you guys try so hard to ruin everything... EAT DIKS |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
106
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:27:00 -
[54] - Quote
guibio wrote:It's a bit late for an April Fools cpp ... I can hear Shana's tears from there. |
Kazanir
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
375
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:28:00 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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. - Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig
It is worth noting here that ships using active tanks OVERWHELMINGLY are fitting capacitor control circuit rigs, which have NO penalty and are generally the best choice for a variety of reasons. There are exceptions, but these changes will do very little to change the status quo for people fitting most active tanks. |
Tekola
Hyvat Pahat ja Eric The Polaris Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:32:00 -
[56] - 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.
Trying to achieve that via rigs and questionable and shifting tanking philosophies might open Pandora's box of doom for eternal fails so why not aim straight to ships and racial bonuses?
First impression was that speed affect tanking, difficult to code and too absract, so impractical game wise. Second thought was that AB's/MWD's affect tanking, maybe fixed or mixed resists, amount and regen.
Surely there are also other and better ideas to achieve desired goal.
Tekola |
Yanna Karr
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:36:00 -
[57] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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
Are you seriously making this big a change without first thoroughly testing it on SiSi and soliciting tons of user feedback? I see the awesome CCP is back.
Edit: I realized this post is in F&I, so I might be wrong and this is not coming with Inferno. Please, PLEASE test this well. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
182
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:39:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP: Fire this guy and put Soundwave on the job. He actually knows what he's doing. tia (thanks in advance) |
Brunaburh
Aurora Security Transstellar Operations
35
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:42:00 -
[59] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: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.
I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction.
Perhaps you should first determine what problem you are trying to solve, then generate a list of possible solutions to that problem.
Because what you are doing does not appear to be solving a problem, per se. It appears to be an attempt to force people to utilize under-used items in EVE.
If you wish people to use these under-utilized items, I would look at improving the items (or their effects on specific hulls) themselves, rather than nerfing the items that are being used.
Have you also evaluated how you will handle the issue of rigs already mounted on ships, that suddenly are a detriment to the ship themselves? Those rigs cannot be removed and reused, or resold, and if they are expensive, you are just trashing ISK that your players have spent.
This brings up a tangental thought, removing a rig destroys it, perhaps in doing so it returns a fraction of the salvage used to make it? |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
782
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:43:00 -
[60] - Quote
Yanna Karr wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: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
Are you seriously making this big a change without first thoroughly testing it on SiSi and soliciting tons of user feedback? I see the awesome CCP is back. Edit: I realized this post is in F&I, so I might be wrong and this is not coming with Inferno. Please, PLEASE test this well.
No one said anywhere that this was in the client just fyi. This is Ytterbium asking for feedback on ideas that go on and off his board fairly easily. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 |