Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:06:00 -
[1]
I noticed the cap issue posts on here and think it maybe a good idea for CCP to reduce the fitting costs and cap usage of hull, armour reppers and shield boosters.
This will allow ships to fit non "gimped" fits and maybe increase the amount of solo and small gang active tankage PVP.
discuss.
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:15:00 -
[2]
Originally by: honey bunchetta
I noticed the cap issue posts on here and think it maybe a good idea for CCP to reduce the fitting costs and cap usage of hull, armour reppers and shield boosters.
This will allow ships to fit non "gimped" fits and maybe increase the amount of solo and small gang active tankage PVP.
discuss.
Hull?
And, I doubt it. Solo PvP is not rare because of Cap or fitting issues.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:29:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Originally by: honey bunchetta
I noticed the cap issue posts on here and think it maybe a good idea for CCP to reduce the fitting costs and cap usage of hull, armour reppers and shield boosters.
This will allow ships to fit non "gimped" fits and maybe increase the amount of solo and small gang active tankage PVP.
discuss.
Hull?
And, I doubt it. Solo PvP is not rare because of Cap or fitting issues.
Ok i added hull reppers cos i did not want them to feel left out but they are not really relavant......
But maybe if you increase the amount of ships that CAN solo pvp effectivly by making active tanking easier to fit and cheaper to use cap wise the roll over effect may increase the amount of ships that DO solo and active tank PVP.
|
Zanon Xiu
The Gemini Factor Chaotic Evolution
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Originally by: honey bunchetta
I noticed the cap issue posts on here and think it maybe a good idea for CCP to reduce the fitting costs and cap usage of hull, armour reppers and shield boosters.
This will allow ships to fit non "gimped" fits and maybe increase the amount of solo and small gang active tankage PVP.
discuss.
Hull?
And, I doubt it. Solo PvP is not rare because of Cap or fitting issues.
Ok i added hull reppers cos i did not want them to feel left out but they are not really relavant......
But maybe if you increase the amount of ships that CAN solo pvp effectivly by making active tanking easier to fit and cheaper to use cap wise the roll over effect may increase the amount of ships that DO solo and active tank PVP.
???????????????????? your tank gets better with skill. your cap gets better with skill. your power grid gets better with skill. There are some skills your going to need max out to run ships effectively. There are many videos of people soloing and even killing 2 to 3 oponents or smaller ships taking on bigger ships.
If ccp were to do what you said, many people who prob have much more skill than you and time invested will be solo wtf pwn mobiles.
before you start suggesting somthing, i do recommend you get the max skill posible/implants and then come n complain.
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:40:00 -
[5]
Originally by: honey bunchetta
But maybe if you increase the amount of ships that CAN solo pvp effectivly by making active tanking easier to fit and cheaper to use cap wise the roll over effect may increase the amount of ships that DO solo and active tank PVP.
If it was about tanking, then you would already see buffer tanks doing it. Regardless of your tank, you will easily get overwhelmed by multiple ships, that is why solo PvP is rare.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Zanon Xiu
your tank gets better with skill.
Thanks for the scoop.
Originally by: Zanon Xiu your cap gets better with skill.
WOW yet another earth shattering revalation.
Originally by: Zanon Xiu your power grid gets better with skill.
Are you like a eve oracle or summat?...
Originally by: Zanon Xiu There are many videos of people soloing and even killing 2 to 3 oponents or smaller ships taking on bigger ships.
Yet another mind blowing point of interest.
Originally by: Zanon Xiu If ccp were to do what you said, many people who prob have much more skill than you and time invested will be solo wtf pwn mobiles.
Maybe having more "solo wtf pwn mobiles" in eve would increase the amaount of ppl IN "solo wtf pwn mobiles" thus increasing the amount of solo wtf pwning" in eve.
See the progression?.
Originally by: Zanon Xiu before you start suggesting somthing, i do recommend you get the max skill posible/implants and then come n complain.
Before you reply in future i suggest you read a post and check if it a complaint or a suggestio.
PS: FYI i already have the max'd out one race as far as pvp skills are concerned, have ALL tertiary ship skills to 5 and also have BS 5 in 2 other races along with the relavant gunnery skill specializations for them to lvl4.
|
Raxlar Kalimar
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 14:56:00 -
[7]
Yeah active tanking needs to be buffed allot, the problem is that the hit point buffs made buffer tanking superior in all but the longest fights and PVE.
As an example with the Cyclone with its active tanking bonus, there are still situations when you would be better off fitting extenders, even over an XL Booster. This for the most part is because in order to recover more hit points using the booster than you would have through use of extenders you are required to run the booster for such an extended period that you would cap out. This leads to everyone fitting Gank + Buffer making the Lg Booster option pitifully inadequate in comparison to the DPS of the average HAC.
IF you want to keep even a Lg Booster running then you have to turn the ship into a flying capacitor and by that point you have turned your ship into a self licking lolly-pop because it wont be able to do anything else. THIS IS A BONUSED SHIP!!!!!
The second thing that gimped active tanking was the NOSS nerf. At least you used to be able to get cap for your active tank form your opponent. Also before everyone screams CAP boosters at me try fitting a cap booster and a Sheild Booster to a Cyclone and let me know how much fitting you have left over for weapons!
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 15:01:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Murina on 19/04/2009 15:04:56
Maybe a shorter rep cycle time say 1 or 2 secs along with a simular reduction in cap usage and rep amount (per cycle) would help active tanking.
So the base stats on a LAR would be (ROUGH EXAMPLE ONLY):
Activation time 1.5secs instead of 15secs. Armour HP repaired 80 per cycle instead of 800 per cycle. Activation cost 40 cap per cycle instead of 400 cap per cycle.
So it cycles 10x faster but reps 10x less per cycle for 10x less cap per cycle....
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 15:13:00 -
[9]
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Maybe having more "solo wtf pwn mobiles" in eve would increase the amaount of ppl IN "solo wtf pwn mobiles" thus increasing the amount of solo wtf pwning" in eve.
See the progression?.
Buffing armor or repair promotes blobbing because it then takes more firepower to kill things. Reducing armor repair effectiveness, and reducing HP's on ships encourages solo PvP, not the other way around. If it is possible to warp in, get a quick kill, and escape before the blob arrives, then more people will try to do it.
See the progression?
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 15:21:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Maybe having more "solo wtf pwn mobiles" in eve would increase the amaount of ppl IN "solo wtf pwn mobiles" thus increasing the amount of "solo wtf pwning" in eve.
See the progression?.
Buffing armor or repair promotes blobbing because it then takes more firepower to kill things. Reducing armor repair effectiveness, and reducing HP's on ships encourages solo PvP, not the other way around. If it is possible to warp in, get a quick kill, and escape before the blob arrives, then more people will try to do it.
See the progression?
Not really as you are refering to ganking a ratter or unwilling target more than facing another pvper.
|
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 15:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Murina
Maybe a shorter rep cycle time say 1 or 2 secs along with a simular reduction in cap usage and rep amount (per cycle) would help active tanking.
So the base stats on a LAR would be (ROUGH EXAMPLE ONLY):
Activation time 1.5secs instead of 15secs. Armour HP repaired 80 per cycle instead of 800 per cycle. Activation cost 40 cap per cycle instead of 400 cap per cycle.
So it cycles 10x faster but reps 10x less per cycle for 10x less cap per cycle....
Gives the same overall effect but does not leave a massive 10+ second or so hole between rep cycles for alpha strike meltage, especially considering a lot of races have a ROF of 5 secs or even less (so 2 volleys per rep cycle at the moment).
Now this is a interesting idea, remote reps have a 5 second cycle time that helps a lot vs alpha and volley dmg so a faster rep cycle on local reps sounds cool.
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:00:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 19/04/2009 15:07:44
Maybe a shorter rep cycle time say 1 or 2 secs along with a simular reduction in cap usage and rep amount (per cycle) would help active tanking.
So the base stats on a LAR would be (ROUGH EXAMPLE ONLY):
Activation time 1.5secs instead of 15secs. Armour HP repaired 80 per cycle instead of 800 per cycle. Activation cost 40 cap per cycle instead of 400 cap per cycle.
So it cycles 10x faster but reps 10x less per cycle for 10x less cap per cycle....
Gives the same overall effect but does not leave a massive 10+ second or so hole between rep cycles for alpha strike meltage, especially considering a lot of races have a ROF of 5 secs or even less (so 2 volleys per rep cycle at the moment).
I like this. This also helps a lot ships with low buffer like the Ishtar which, while in theory great for dual repping, has a hard time doing it because damage just leaks through it 2000 or so armour HP.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:05:00 -
[13]
Ah, and there I thought this was going to point out why it's stupid to active tank when you could be passive (HP) tanking.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
MidnightMartyr
Gallente Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 19/04/2009 15:07:44
Maybe a shorter rep cycle time say 1 or 2 secs along with a simular reduction in cap usage and rep amount (per cycle) would help active tanking.
So the base stats on a LAR would be (ROUGH EXAMPLE ONLY):
Activation time 1.5secs instead of 15secs. Armour HP repaired 80 per cycle instead of 800 per cycle. Activation cost 40 cap per cycle instead of 400 cap per cycle.
So it cycles 10x faster but reps 10x less per cycle for 10x less cap per cycle....
Gives the same overall effect but does not leave a massive 10+ second or so hole between rep cycles for alpha strike meltage, especially considering a lot of races have a ROF of 5 secs or even less (so 2 volleys per rep cycle at the moment).
I like this. This also helps a lot ships with low buffer like the Ishtar which, while in theory great for dual repping, has a hard time doing it because damage just leaks through it 2000 or so armour HP.
As an Ishtar pilot I support this idea.
|
cyno here
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:12:00 -
[15]
I do agree that active tanking needs a boost, but this will not change state of solopvp whatsoever. Only few people (in relation to whole eve population, there are only few) solo nowdays because it requires different approach to the game (you don't mind loosing ship and getting ganked by 38957238948923 ppl) and well, balls of steel because you will almost always be out of position and in worse ship. I think that we all know that most people don't have what it takes for solo, and no buff will change it.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:14:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Murina
Maybe a shorter rep cycle time say 1 or 2 secs along with a simular reduction in cap usage and rep amount (per cycle) would help active tanking.
So the base stats on a LAR would be (ROUGH EXAMPLE ONLY):
Activation time 1.5secs instead of 15secs. Armour HP repaired 80 per cycle instead of 800 per cycle. Activation cost 40 cap per cycle instead of 400 cap per cycle.
So it cycles 10x faster but reps 10x less per cycle for 10x less cap per cycle....
Gives the same overall effect but does not leave a massive 10+ second or so hole between rep cycles for alpha strike meltage, especially considering a lot of races have a ROF of 5 secs or even less (so 2 volleys per rep cycle at the moment).
I like this. This also helps a lot ships with low buffer like the Ishtar which, while in theory great for dual repping, has a hard time doing it because damage just leaks through it 2000 or so armour HP.
Im trying to look at things from a negative perspective (as im sure others will) and so far all i have got is that on a normal dual lar fit i manage my cap by injecting 1 x 800 and instantly hit both reppers that use it up (400 each) and that now a lot of that injected cap would be lost against a ship with cap warfare fitted.
Although a ships natural cap recharge would allow reppers to function reasonably well even against a cap killer ship.
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:21:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 19/04/2009 16:25:50
Originally by: honey bunchetta Not really as you are refering to ganking a ratter or unwilling target more than facing another pvper.
??? Rubbish. I am not talking about that at all. I am referring to the fact that as a solo PvPer the most dangerous time for you, aside from jumping through gates unscouted, is when you are actually engaged in combat. In these situations, there is a good chance that enforcements are on the way, so you really need to get the kill and GTFO. Better reppers and more HP's work against you when you are trying to accomplish that.
Why can I not be a "PvPer" and an unwilling target.
If I am flying a Huggin and a Domi warps in I am going to GTFO. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't engage a T1 cruiser though.
I am not sure what game you are playing. It sounds like you are talking more about consentual 1v1 PvP, which is not really a good indication of the majority of PvP in Eve.
So called "PvPers" are not an honorable bunch, most are not looking to have a fair fight. I mean why are bait ships so common... they are looking for you my friend.
However, I do agree that buffer/Active tank is out of balance, and that active tanking should be buffed, just not for the reasons you stated.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:22:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Murina
Im trying to look at things from a negative perspective (as im sure others will) and so far all i have got is that on a normal dual lar fit i manage my cap by injecting 1 x 800 and instantly hit both reppers that use it up (400 each) and that now a lot of that injected cap would be lost against a ship with cap warfare fitted.
Although a ships natural cap recharge would allow reppers to function reasonably well even against a cap killer ship.
That is not a bad thing. Long has it been simply "meh, he's got neuts... and I've got 17 800's left".
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:29:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Murina on 19/04/2009 16:32:31
Originally by: Liang Nuren Ah, and there I thought this was going to point out why it's stupid to active tank when you could be passive (HP) tanking.
-Liang
Reducing the duration, amount and cap of active reppers gives roughly the same effect as fitting a plate with the down side of it uses cap but the upside that it is a regenerative effect (ie: If the dmg is lower than the resistaces+rep amount the tank will be stable instead of just breaking slower like a pure plated fit would).
A 1600 best named plate gives a set 4200 raw set hp.
With this idea a large repper would give (without skills) 800hp but instead of doing that every 15 seconds in one chunk (leaving a big 3 volley alpha hole) it gives the 800hp (without skills) OVER the 15 second period (80 per second or 40 every .5 of a second...ect).
It would be a little like the passive shield tank effect but with a active rep component doing the recharging.
|
Drek Grapper
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 16:33:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Liang Nuren Ah, and there I thought this was going to point out why it's stupid to active tank when you could be passive (HP) tanking.
-Liang
Reducing the duration, amount and cap of active reppers gives roughly the same effect as fitting a plate with the down side of it uses cap but the upside that it is a regenerative effect (ie: If the dmg is lower than the resistaces+rep amount the tank will be stable instead of just breaking slower like a pure plated fit would).
A 1600 best named plate gives a set 4200 raw set hp.
With this idea a large repper would give (without skills) 800hp but instead of doing that every 15 seconds in one chunk (leaving a big 3 volley alpha hole) it gives the 800hp (without skills) OVER the 15 second period (80 per second ect).
It woulds be a little like the passive shield tank effect but with a active rep component doing the recharging.
I like these ideas of yours. I hope CCP subscribes to your newsletter... -- "If itĘs true that our species is alone in the universe, then IĘd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little" George Carlin |
|
Deschenus Maximus
Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 18:40:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Drek Grapper
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Liang Nuren Ah, and there I thought this was going to point out why it's stupid to active tank when you could be passive (HP) tanking.
-Liang
Reducing the duration, amount and cap of active reppers gives roughly the same effect as fitting a plate with the down side of it uses cap but the upside that it is a regenerative effect (ie: If the dmg is lower than the resistaces+rep amount the tank will be stable instead of just breaking slower like a pure plated fit would).
A 1600 best named plate gives a set 4200 raw set hp.
With this idea a large repper would give (without skills) 800hp but instead of doing that every 15 seconds in one chunk (leaving a big 3 volley alpha hole) it gives the 800hp (without skills) OVER the 15 second period (80 per second ect).
It woulds be a little like the passive shield tank effect but with a active rep component doing the recharging.
I like these ideas of yours. I hope CCP subscribes to your newsletter...
I think this should be presented in the Features and Ideas forum.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 18:51:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Deschenus Maximus
Originally by: Drek Grapper
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Liang Nuren Ah, and there I thought this was going to point out why it's stupid to active tank when you could be passive (HP) tanking.
-Liang
Reducing the duration, amount and cap of active reppers gives roughly the same effect as fitting a plate with the down side of it uses cap but the upside that it is a regenerative effect (ie: If the dmg is lower than the resistaces+rep amount the tank will be stable instead of just breaking slower like a pure plated fit would).
A 1600 best named plate gives a set 4200 raw set hp.
With this idea a large repper would give (without skills) 800hp but instead of doing that every 15 seconds in one chunk (leaving a big 3 volley alpha hole) it gives the 800hp (without skills) OVER the 15 second period (80 per second ect).
It woulds be a little like the passive shield tank effect but with a active rep component doing the recharging.
I like these ideas of yours. I hope CCP subscribes to your newsletter...
I think this should be presented in the Features and Ideas forum.
Done.
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 20:39:00 -
[23]
What is Shield Boosters and Armor Repairers gave a secondary bonus? Perhaps omni resist of +10% to shield or armor.
Then their tanking wouldn't be so terrible. More people would fit them also.
|
Magnus Castaneus
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 23:15:00 -
[24]
I'm not too experienced in solo pvp, but what i do know is that people always like gang up on a single person. If you reduce the fitting costs, the only thing that would go up is overall tanking ability, nerfing gank power and encouraging fleet and discouraging solo pvp. But hey, that's just my opinion. *prepares for flames*
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |