| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
   |
Posted - 2009.07.27 00:56:00 -
[31]
The local active tank can easily be fixed without damaging the balance it has on PVE. Just make the overheat bonus of active tanking be much higher than now.
That means that an active tank would have a minimal chance against an overhelmming firepower for a short time (just like buffers).
And that woudl change nothign fo pve.
I propose something like 50% period reduction and 30% amount increase. ALso make the active tank bonuses fo some ships (liek maesltrom and hyperion boost that boost also. That means a maesltrom overheat would be 50% period reduction and 30%*1.375= 78% ammount....
Since the overheat cannto be sustained more than 1 or 2 minutes is not somethign exploitable easily.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 01:08:00 -
[32]
The above is actually a good idea. Also, I think that local rep bonuses should apply to remote rep as well so that they scale in large active-tanking gangs.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 01:15:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Izo Alabaster
* = disclaimer: Yes, I'm aware you can successfully PVP fit a Drake. I don't need someone to point out how awesome they think their PVP FailDrakes are.
People like you are the reason why the drake is one of the best large-fleet anti-support ships around. Thank you for allowing me to fit a honor tank and pop those annoying buggers while everyone but me gets called primary. ^_^
|
Manfred Rickenbocker
Professors On Steriods
DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 17:57:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ephemeron
The only reasonable thing CCP can do now is to introduce stacking penalty on trimarks and shield extender rigs. But even such common sense thing would take a lot of convincing.
Bad. Stacking penalties are what make this issue even more prevalent particularly with respect to rigs. Trimarks and their ilk are used more vs other rigs precisely because other rigs stack against standard modules that are fitted. Id much rather fit an ROF rig than a Trimark because a Trimark makes my ship slow as dirt. Problem is, the ROF rig is stacking penalized against all the Heatsinks/Magstabs/Gyro Ive fitted. Furthermore, the bonus is worse, so Im STILL better off fitting an extra damage mod over the rig.
The real reason active tanks have taken a huge dive in PVP is not necessarily because of EHP but rather because active tanks are way too hard to fit and too easy defeat:
- Nos/Neut shuts it off rendering it useless.
- Repair amounts are at the end of a cycle while guns damage at the beginning.
- I can fit 3 (!) 1600mm plates for the cost of a large armor repper.
- It competes for capacitor resources needed by MWD, guns, tackle, etc
- Fleets battles are about attrition rather than tactics
------------------------
Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times. |
Kel Nissa
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 19:05:00 -
[35]
you forgot:
- they are immune against module lag
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 19:45:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Originally by: Ephemeron
The only reasonable thing CCP can do now is to introduce stacking penalty on trimarks and shield extender rigs. But even such common sense thing would take a lot of convincing.
Bad. Stacking penalties are what make this issue even more prevalent particularly with respect to rigs. Trimarks and their ilk are used more vs other rigs precisely because other rigs stack against standard modules that are fitted. Id much rather fit an ROF rig than a Trimark because a Trimark makes my ship slow as dirt. Problem is, the ROF rig is stacking penalized against all the Heatsinks/Magstabs/Gyro Ive fitted. Furthermore, the bonus is worse, so Im STILL better off fitting an extra damage mod over the rig.
The real reason active tanks have taken a huge dive in PVP is not necessarily because of EHP but rather because active tanks are way too hard to fit and too easy defeat:
- Nos/Neut shuts it off rendering it useless.
- Repair amounts are at the end of a cycle while guns damage at the beginning.
- I can fit 3 (!) 1600mm plates for the cost of a large armor repper.
- It competes for capacitor resources needed by MWD, guns, tackle, etc
- Fleets battles are about attrition rather than tactics
You make some valid points, however, I was trying to emphasize that the simplest thing for CCP to do is to nerf HP rigs with stacking penalty. There are several ways in which the whole active/passive tanking issue can be addressed, but whatever you are suggesting is more complicated and thus less likely for CCP to act upon. Remember that CCP are much more eager to nerf something than to boost something.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 19:56:00 -
[37]
Somethign real is.. If ccp wants people to fit active tanks they must be
A) superior to passive
OR
b) more easy to fit
But as of now they are inferior and harder to fit.... not very logical huh?
|
Persephonis
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:49:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Persephonis on 27/07/2009 20:55:26
Originally by: Gripen
You can't solve active vs passive balance without changes to focus fire.
Increasing local tank effectivness will either create a stalemates in small fights or won't be enough.
Boosting overload bonuses will greatly increase dock\undock games and gate deaggroing.
Nerfing buffer tank will return us back to 2004 and into the age of gank battleships.
Shameless plug of my ideas on topic if anyone bothers:
New mechanics for warp scrambling - solves a lot
Active\Passive tank balance, Focus fire issue. Idea from Starcraft 2.
I like your ideas. But: some ships I think are specifically designed towards alpha-strike paradigm (minmatar mostly)
My proposal would be to implement a game mechanic which do not INCREASE DAMAGE of that ship (I don't see "the merit" of the defender for increasing its dps) but it would DECREASE (penalize) TRACKING SPEED (on guns) and MISSILE VELOCITY (on launchers) of its aggressors if a ship is being primaried by a certain number of ships. This way the value of the alpha-strike can be preserved and at the same time countering the blob and the focus fire tactics. So there should be a trade off - damage vs tracking speed / missile speed time (this can be exagerrated to the point that a ship being primaried by a huge number of hostile ships could become invulnerable because all guns would miss and the missiles would fly in slow-motion :) I know it's a knee-jerk solution but it CAN work if properly implemented. It's not meant to devalue the effect of fleets but to counter the glorious blob instapopping ship after ship by focusing fire... I hope it can be be given a try.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:55:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 27/07/2009 21:59:47
Perhaps a shorter cycle on active modules or more rep at the cost of more cap. Higher burst rep to counter burst damage.
Then again overheating works nicely for a while.
Still I don't think buffer tanks aren't quite the problem, I think spider tanking is. A harsh stack nerf on multiple ships repping one target? We want logistics ships on the field, but eight or nine BS's repping one is out of control. |
Bibbleibble
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:57:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 27/07/2009 21:55:49
Perhaps a shorter cycle on active modules or more rep at the cost of more cap. Higher burst rep to counter burst damage.
Doesn't solve the problem of active tanks taking cap, whilst buffer tanks don't.
And it screws up the little balance in PVE.
________________________________________________
For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (Now with added summary!) |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:01:00 -
[41]
Well there's always nerf the buffer fittings a bit (especially rigs) and stack nerf remote reps.
|
Ingenue
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:08:00 -
[42]
Maybe we could stack nerf incoming damage? 
|
Devine13
Nomad LLP
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:01:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
1. Train shields
3. ...
2. Profit! ;D
You're doing it wrong.
|
Markus Reese
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 00:04:00 -
[44]
Well, saw silly ones, on short time, so sorry if this is repetition. I think I see what is being said. Essentially, what is needed/desired is a consistent cap decrease/hp increase instead of the getting it into a lump. The whole cycling thing itself is becoming outdated for gameplay, except for weapons. Now whether it is needed due to lag/performance issues, I don't know. Essentially right now, boosting your tank is like filling a bucket with water balloons, one big hit at a time. What is needed is a more steady flow.
Instead of cycle times, would be say XXhp/s at YYcap use/s. The fact they would be toggleable would also add more tactical play as well. No more tap MWD on/off, then be mwd while cloaked for a bit too. More finite control over your cap....
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |