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) |
Quebber
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:45:00 -
[61] - 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
I hate to say this what the ^&*$ are you on?
Get your Ass into pvp, spend 2-3 months atleast of combat in REAL eve situations, then take a moment to rectify this absolutely ****** up design decision.
Stop trying to put us in nice neat boxes did you forget this is a sandbox?
Yes active tank needs tweaking but do not try to balance it in this way. |
Go2
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:47:00 -
[62] - Quote
I think the OP DEV used a very active voice, as if saying "These things are going to happen" rather than something like "We need some feedback on XYZ ideas."
Your problem is "Active and Passive tanks need balancing" - why not just post that and solicit input from the players before going in a direction already ?
CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
783
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:48:00 -
[63] - Quote
corestwo wrote:CCP: Fire this guy and put Soundwave on the job. He actually knows what he's doing. tia (thanks in advance)
Posting to say that this would end up terribly. |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
183
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:49:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.
Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:49:00 -
[65] - Quote
wts nanite repair paste for the overheating damage control itt |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
674
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:49:00 -
[66] - 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
Awesome change, exactly what's needed.
Fon Revedhort wrote:
2) Buffer vs. active tanking.
There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armour. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then.
Btw, should you want to address other crucial issues, I'd suggest you checking out my CSM campaign thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68075
CCP Ytterbium, yet again you proved you're one of those rare competent CCP'ers. 14 |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
295
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:50:00 -
[67] - Quote
Active tanks are completely pointless in anything but small-gang pvp, which relies on speed. The idea you can force a race into active tanking or passive tanking is nonsense: it's going to be what type of pvp you do. No active tank bonus will make active tanking (as opposed to buffer + logi) make sense in anything but rare situations.
Active tanks are now logistics ships, not modules. |
Drew Solaert
University of Caille Gallente Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:50:00 -
[68] - Quote
As a Gallente pilot who loves active tanked ships in PvP, bloody love it. I'll be joining the FDU on May 1st.-á Ladies! Please contain yourselves.
|
Quebber
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:52:00 -
[69] - Quote
If this is a discussion of ideas fine but the original post makes it sound like this is going in game and already decided, all of us know there is a situation with active vs passive tanks, I just do not want to see CCP going back to its old tactics of "we know best" when we find out a lot of ccp devs have never even fit a ship for pvp combat. |
Creat Posudol
Destined for Greatness Inc.
57
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:52:00 -
[70] - Quote
Have you considered other possible drawbacks? Like +HP rigs (extenders/trimarks) penalizing the "other" HP stat, meaning trimarks reduce shield HP, extenders reduce armor HP?
How about a third category, which seems to be missing entirely: Remote-tank. We could use a +remote-rep-amount rig (with a drawback up for debate).
Generally I'm not opposed to these changes, but as I've already said it will do little to change the balance of active/passive tanking. The proposed turret changes ("damage scaling by sig radius"), making smaller ships take less damage from bigger guns (see "Titan changes - update" Thread) could together with this have an impact and make active tanking viable for ships that are small compared to those of the enemy. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
783
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:52:00 -
[71] - Quote
corestwo wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best. Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard.
That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with. |
|
BABARR
PARABELUM-Project
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:54:00 -
[72] - Quote
Creat Posudol wrote:Have you considered other possible drawbacks? Like +HP rigs (extenders/trimarks) penalizing the "other" HP stat, meaning trimarks reduce shield HP, extenders reduce armor HP? .
Lol, why having a drawback then? Stop joking. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6239
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:54:00 -
[73] - Quote
I'm not going to say that this is an inherently bad ideaGǪ
GǪbut I am going to say that without knowing how you plan to actually balance active tanks vs. buffer tanks vs. passive tanks vs. sig tanks (the four tanking modes of EVE), this idea makes no sense.
People will still use buffer tanks because it's the only thing that keeps you alive between (remote) rep cycles. Basically, the reason we are seeing this current (longstanding) popularity of logistics ships is because you need both a buffer and an active tank to survive for any period of time, and what logistics ships let us do is move the active tank over to the highslots on another ship, rather than compete for the limited mid/lowslots on the local ship.
Unless you make local rep cycles so short as to be pretty much continuous GÇö i.e. active tanking will behave just like passive shield tanking with its constant replenishment of HP GÇö people will not stop using buffers, because they are still needed to survive. This means giving local reppers cycle times on the order of <0.5sGǪ hope you've fed the hamsters. And even then, buffers are still a better choice for a number of reason GÇö it's the only way to protect against alpha GÇö so this change will just mean that people will eschew pretty much all tanking rigs except on turtling battleships. For all other ships, the downsides will vastly outweigh the benefits.
Any ship that needs to be fast (and pretty much anything below BS does) can no longer use buffer rigs, because that would contradict their main benefit. They also can't use the active-tank rigs because fitting a proper active tank would take slots away from the buffer tank they are still required to fit in order to survive. Basically, all you're doing with this change alone is to make fast ships weaker.
You need to explain what you're doing to all the other tanking styles, including what you're doing on the ship- and module side of the equation, before we can make any sense out of this particular change. On its own, it's rather nonsensical. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
183
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:54:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:corestwo wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best. Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard. That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.
My post was a bit aggressive, yes...I edited it.
Taken alone, these changes suck, but we don't have the full picture. Things like capless boosters/reppers hinted at in entirely unofficial Chaos leaks would make this work better ("going fast" and "active tank" don't mix, both are heavily cap intensive). As is, however, we're left to judge this change on its own, and on its own it's found wanting. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
824
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:57:00 -
[75] - Quote
Nerf to shield buffer kiting setups, I like.
There are a few ships for which active tanking is at least marginally viable (Vengeance, Sacrilege, Hawk, Stabber Fleet Issue, Cyclone, Myrmidon) but in all instances they either have to have an overwhelmingly huge active tank. An increase in speed of all ships "intended" for active tanking may be good, to be able to compensate for a possible lack in raw tank by using an afterburner and sig tanking. This works well on the Sacrilege and Vengeance presently, and would only work better if armor active tank rigs were changed to not reduce speed, and shield active tank rigs were changed to not bloat sig radius. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 16:59:00 -
[76] - Quote
This is a genuinely terrible idea.
For starters, you clearly do not understand active tanking if you think that resistance rigs are used only in passive tanking. Resist rigs are easily the most common rigs used while active tanking, as they increase the overall efficiency of your local reps vs damage taken. It honestly scares me that you do not understand this and you are trying to make this change. Whether it is a maelstorm, cyclone, brutix, myrmidon, merlin or what have you, every one of them will have at least 1 resistance rigs. (Usually em and thermal rigs for shield tanking while the brutix/myrm that armor tank will have an explosive rig, or kinetic if you expect to fight lots of drakes)
This will be a complete nerf to anything that is remotely nano. For shield tankers, and especially solo pvpers, the use of rigs that would decrease your speed in ships that work only because of their speeds just does not make sense. Nobody would want to put core defence field extenders on their ships anymore except in big, blobby fleet fights. You would be making core defence field extenders all but obsolete and would be enacting a huge nerf to an incredibly large amount of ship types that depend on these rigs.
It just blows my mind that you would even consider something so ********, let alone make a thread about it. Normally I would not use such language, but I cannot stress to you how much this is a pants-on-head-******** idea. I cannot even think of how to improve this post anymore I am so dumbstruck. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
484
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:01:00 -
[77] - Quote
Should have formulated the original post more as a question than a statement, sorry for the confusion.
The point of posting this in "Feature & Ideas Discussion" is because it is a high level concept that was passed along, and that we wanted to discuss before doing anything with it as it has some repercussions.
This is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has been started on it yet. We don't want to repeat the problem that happened with booster changes during Crucible, thus the point of this is to involve player feedback earlier in the development process so we can filter points out before they make it to Singularity.
I will tweak the first post to reflect this. |
|
Go2
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:01:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:corestwo wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best. Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard. That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.
I agree. There's just a communication gap where there is legitimate confusion about what is being asked for. Are you asking for our input on a problem, are you asking for our ideas about a solution or are you informing us of a change you are going to make ? It was not clear from the post which it was.
Having said that, sorry for all the trolls. |
BABARR
PARABELUM-Project
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:02:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:corestwo wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best. Additionally, active tanking is cap intensive, and so is going "fast", which makes the attempt to pigeon-hole the notionally fast races (gallente and minmatar) into active tanking even more laughable. Admittedly the capless shield booster in the leaked Chaos server differential would help in that regard. That's fine and if the change doesn't work, he'll not put it in. What I'll say is this though: You can't really advocate collecting feedback and then sperging out in the same sentence. There are plenty of people in this thread who express their opinion without creating an environment that's pretty negative to interact with.
No. It's amazing to see a dev proposing some balancing and saying "funny" things like "gallente are using their speed in pvp", we (the comunity) have the feeling some dev don't play the game they work in, and it's terrifing.
I'am ok for a "all ship nano" nerf, but we have to think about "why ppl fly nano" before. I'am ok to give more love to active tanking, but we have to think about "why ppl prefer passive tank", and don't forget when you have a active tank ship, you can have PASSIVE rig like resist.
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
342
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:03:00 -
[80] - Quote
Quote:Here's the collective feedback from players, then: His idea sucks. In many cases sig radius is an important aspect of a player's tank and so encouraging people to use active tanking by increasing their sig radius is moronic at best.
So is speed. Speed and sig penalties are both harmful - welcome to rigs. The point is that rather than giving shield tanks the sig bloom penalty and armor tanks the speed penalty, you give passive tanks the speed penalty and active tanks the sig penalty.
I will say that this suggestion has some problems. Why are auxiliary nanobots going to noticeably increase your sig? Why is a shield extender going to slow you down?
This change homogenizes shield and armor tanks, which for awhile had notably different drawbacks. Armor tanks killed your speed/agility, and shield tanks killed your sig. One of the primary benefits of shield tanks is that they let you tank while going fast.
If you use the same logic as in the OP, which is that sig penalties are preferably to speed penalties, then this change is a blanket nerf to all shield tanks.
Fast ships generally need their cap for other things. If they run out of cap they can't go fast. More importantly, if you're cap intensive, you need your mids for cap mods...And if you want a ship to go fast, you shield tank.
Most damning of this idea is the fact that the Gallente blasterboat style of fighting just does not make any damn sense with active reps. The whole point of a blasterboat is to burn in range and melt your opponent's face off before he kills you...Combat with a blasterboat is over fast, one way or the other. This style of fighting does not in any way work with an active tank
You need to reconsider your goals. If anything, it should be the "brick" races (Caldari and Amarr) that are good at sitting there and laughing at incoming damage. I would also encourage you to change any armor rep bonuses to either affect incoming remote reps as well, or change them to resist bonuses. Local active rep bonuses ensure that certain ships will never be useful beyond a small gang. |
|
Go2
Nexus Advanced Technologies Fidelas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:04:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Should have formulated the original post more as a question than a statement, sorry for the confusion.
The point of posting this in "Feature & Ideas Discussion" is because it is a high level concept that was passed along, and that we wanted to discuss before doing anything with it as it has some repercussions.
This is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has been started on it yet. We don't want to repeat the problem that happened with booster changes during Crucible, thus the point of this is to involve player feedback earlier in the development process so we can filter points out before they make it to Singularity.
I will tweak the first post to reflect this.
Fair enough.
I think there does need to be a better balance between the tanking types. As you've seen in this post everyone is saying that a buffer tank or passive tank is the only thing ever used in PVP. This is bad, when one item is so clearly the best then that effectively removes all options.
One thing you may wish to look at is more towards root causes. Why is buffer tanking the best, and what can be done to address that root cause ? |
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Ev0ke
72
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:05:00 -
[82] - 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.
Disclaimer: this will be heavily minmatar based and biased since those are the only ships I fly
So, for all engagements that exceed 2vs2 or 3vs3, where active tanking stops to "scale", Amarr/Caldari are wanted to be the only viable races?
Ships that rely on speed to win their engagement get their signature increased so they are easier to track and hit, negating the advantage their speed should give them? Did that make sense to you prior to typing it?
Ships that rely on speed for their engagements are all but barred from using passive rigs, since it destroys their primary combat attribute. Yet I completely fail to see the absolutely destroying drawback a ship designed for passive operation receives upon fitting an active tank. Where did it hide?
Are you proposing, with a straight face, to active tank a vagabond? (Current ccp skill recommendations are high-velocity helmsman and passive shield tanking, which are polar opposites by your definition).
The traditional racial flavour attributes for minmatar include:
- drawback: easy to jam
- drawback: weak capacitor
- drawback: no strong tanking slot layout (less or even numbers of slots on the tanking row, never the full 8 except for the fleet phoon which we had to fight hard for, even distribution of HP between shield and armor to throw off min/maxing or even more HP on the off-tank type)
- neutral: cap free weapons (conclusion of the weak cap which can't really sustain anything cap using)
- benefit: hard to hit due to high speed
- benefit: hard to hit due to low signature
So, whichever form of tanking we use, active or passive, we straight up kill one of our two racial strongpoints. Are we supposed to hero and/or honour tank?
PS: I took the liberty of oversimplifying my remarks since you took the liberty of oversimplifying the mechanics related to tanking rigs. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
674
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:11:00 -
[83] - Quote
In case my previous post wasn't clear enough:
CCP Ytterbium, you should also swap shield extenders penalty from sig to mass, so that HP increasing mods act consistently and decrease speed regardless of whether it's shield or armour.
Changing just rigs alone is not enough, give how damn popular those overpowered shield extenders are. 14 |
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
81
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:13:00 -
[84] - Quote
Its good that your coming to the community for ideas, and everybody makes mistakes so fair enough on that.
The primary issue is your nerfing nano ships because other things are broken, and are in some ways are making active tanking worse, because in the days of hurricanes that spew 600DPS active tanking relies on damage mitigation from speed and sig as much as the tank itself.
Your change makes active tanking worse in some ways while severly nerfing ships that arent the issue.
|
Maz3r Rakum
The Imperial Fedaykin
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:13:00 -
[85] - Quote
If you want to 'mix up' rig choice and rig effect, why not just remove all drawbacks to rigs?? or make it so you can reduce drawbacks 100% by training up the rigging skill to V? |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
451
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:15:00 -
[86] - Quote
I would like to contribute by thanking Soundwave and Ytterbium for posting this idea in F&I before beginning the work and changes involved. I'd also like to congratulate you for thinking outside the box.
That said, I think you strayed a little too far from the box. As others in the thread have stated much more clearly than I, this idea is not the best. This change does not serve the purpose you're hoping for. A solution must be found to the lack of scalability active tanking suffers from.
You're already aware of the numbers, but I'll provide yet another example. Say you have a ship that can regenerate 500 HP every second. You are able to break even against a comparable ship as long as that enemy deals out a maximum of (you guessed it) 500 applied damage points every second, counting resists. Other factors may raise or lower that number depending on the situation.
For example, a fight against a ship with a large buffer tank may be able to hold out against you until you either run out of cap or die, assuming they have even a miniscule advantage over you between those two numbers. (Say 550 applied DPS versus your 500 HP/s active tank). A ship that has much less buffer than you will not survive long either way, so the bar can be set much higher versus them. You don't necessarily need to tank their damage for long, since you could kill them quickly.
This assumed a relatively even fight. As soon as you add another ship, as others have said, your tank crumbles. Active tanking does not scale well. Your proposed changes do not address this.
The worst problem here is that you've drastically worsened the active tanking situation by blooming their signature radius. As we all know, this will increase applied DPS, so a ship that was formerly on even grounds with you now applies considerably MORE damage to your ship per second thanks to your signature radius.
You would make active tanking even harder and less attractive than it is already, without changing the already existing issues with it. This is not a good change. It may be a good idea in the future once active tanking is on par with buffer tanks again, but right now it is not.
I won't address the other half of this change in this post, because the active tanking issue concerns me far more than a speed nerf to shield buffers. I want you to pay attention to the above text. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
297
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:16:00 -
[87] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:In case my previous post wasn't clear enough:
CCP Ytterbium, you should also swap shield extenders penalty from sig to mass, so that HP increasing mods act consistently and decrease speed regardless of whether it's shield or armour.
Changing just rigs alone is not enough, given how damn popular those overpowered shield extenders are and that -10...-15% speed reduction is not that much. I'd say an overtanked ship should be like 20-35% slower than one of active tank. one might suppose you're looking for a final solution to buffertanks |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
518
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:20:00 -
[88] - Quote
I for one would welcome our new Blaster Hyperion overlords.
Except active tanking in largescale pvp is terrible, active tanking needs to improve (without then not becoming drastically overpowered that it will grind down a single passive tank, or become an endless fight vs other active tanked ships) before it'll be taken seriously in pvp outside of a few niche ships. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Naglfar Dark
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:25:00 -
[89] - Quote
Max Butched wrote:but look guyz, he just posting this so we can help him out figuring out how to do his job
+1 |
StevieTopSiders
Evolution IT Alliance
31
|
Posted - 2012.04.23 17:27:00 -
[90] - Quote
Because you devs are responding (which is appreciated) I'll vomit up some more concrete thoughts:
It seems you are going for this:
Passive Shield - slows speed Tanking Shield - increases sig (same as now) Passive Armor - slows speed (same as now) Tanking Armor - increases sig
I like Passive Armor as they are now. You sacrifice speed for no sig bloom. I don't like the Tanking Armor drawback you suggest, because that makes armor not sig-tank-ish. I think the kiting armor stuff this opens up is cool, but I want armor to stay with low-ish sig.
I think the Passive Shield drawback is currently not harsh enough, but I don't approve of making them basically the same as Trimarks. I think they still need some type of sig bloom (because you are increasing the size of the giant shield bubble around you), but I do like the idea of them slowing down a little. Currently, you can just throw 3x CDFE on pretty much any ship and you're good to go.
tl;dr - The only change I really like here is making armor repair rigs not slow you down, because that opens up some cool armor-kite fits. I want CDFE's to have a more severe drawback, but I do not advocate making them slow you down exclusively. Keep the sig bloom and subtract a tiny bit of speed, but don't make them trimarks. |
|
|
|
|
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 |