Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 11:21:00 -
[1]
Active tanking/Cap Warfare
Nosferatu All Nosteratu to receive a 100% increase to the amount of cap transferred. (eg, small II = 18 GJ, medium II = 72 GJ, heavy II = 240 GJ This would complete Nosferatus transformation from an offensive capacitor warfare module, to a defensive countermeasure to energy neutralisers.
Capital Nosteratu I ò Energy Transfer Amount 1200 GJ ò Duration 30 seconds ò Tracking: 0.0082000 (0.0112500) ò Optimal: 45,000m ò Powergrid: 150,00 MW ò CPU: 100 tf
Cap Booster All Capacitor booster reload time to be reduced from 10 to 5 seconds. ò +20% The overloaded duration bonus value changed to 30%
Triage Module ò -50% bonus to Nosteratu duration ò -75% reduction in the about of strontium cathates consumed per cycle ò Duration Reduced from 600 seconds, to 300 seconds.
Shield and Armor Repairers. ò +15% The overloaded duration bonus value changed to 25% ò +10% The overloaded Repair and shield boost bonus value changed to 50% Heat damage increased by 100%.
Active tanking whilst overloaded now increases the strength of your tank by 90, to 120% (depending on hardeners). This makes active tanking more relevant in current PvP, without drastically disturbing the performance of PvE. The new burst tank ability will allow active tanking to sustain several more cycles under fire from the dps generated by average gangs of a relative strength to the size of the modules fitted.
____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 11:46:00 -
[2]
____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Navigator Six
Domination. THE KLINGONS
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 12:05:00 -
[3]
Make it so. |
Spaztick
Terminal Impact Kairakau
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 13:28:00 -
[4]
The Triage changes are coming into effect, but why not, I'll say yes.
Quote: [21:18:10] SFShootme > first a carrier that goes boom, then mr viper had to find one of my goon alts, and now i'm down 182b ;( |
Harotak
THE FINAL STAND The Final Stand.
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 15:29:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Harotak on 18/09/2009 15:33:31
I would also like to see cap booster charges smaller than 800 get a bonus to cap booster cycle time. I.E. cap 400s get 50% bonus, 200s 75%, ect.... This would keep the cap per second boost the same, but allow you to recieve the cap in smaller peices spread out over time instead of one large boost.
Also I would have prefered to halve energy neut ammount to bring them in line with nos instead of boosting the nos.
|
Adam Ridgway
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 16:36:00 -
[6]
Original and well though stuff.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 20:59:00 -
[7]
Wait, what? The active tank changes I can see the reasoning for, and think I like, but what's this business with nosses? I really don't follow your logic there. Also, reload times are locked, and I don't think can be changed without an inordinate amount of work on CCP's part. Change the cycle times if you want them made better, or the overheat bonuses, not the reload times.
While I do like your idea on how to make active tanking relevant, the rest of this proposal looks like a hash to me. Is there some logic here I'm missing, or what?
Also, lol@ Adam Ridgway.
|
fmercury
Club Bear
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 21:08:00 -
[8]
Supported
|
fmercury
Club Bear
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 21:15:00 -
[9]
Whoops!
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 21:47:00 -
[10]
I really don't think the cap boosters need a buff, they already completely remove the penelty for an entire race with a single module.
capital nosferatu would make trying to break capitals tank even more painful as you can't neut em down now.
Nosferatu changes look ok.
triage changes are already coming
shield/armour rep changes look interesting. ------------------------------
Just a crazy inventor ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
|
Allen Ramses
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 23:33:00 -
[11]
Supported.
On top of that, I would like to see armor reppers have their duration decreased by 20% so they can actually be useful, and powergrid usage reduced by 20% so they can actually be used.
I would also like to see cap usage for armor and shield reppers to be reduced by 25%, as they are too cap hungry to use for a prolonged period of time. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 00:06:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 19/09/2009 00:09:48 Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 19/09/2009 00:07:51
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Wait, what? The active tank changes I can see the reasoning for, and think I like, but what's this business with nosses? I really don't follow your logic there. Also, reload times are locked, and I don't think can be changed without an inordinate amount of work on CCP's part. Change the cycle times if you want them made better, or the overheat bonuses, not the reload times.
While I do like your idea on how to make active tanking relevant, the rest of this proposal looks like a hash to me. Is there some logic here I'm missing, or what?
I think someone put it simply that neuts could be nerfed to half the effect because of there effect to active tanking.
Also, Reload times are not hard-coded to 10 seconds. There set per module - Every Amarr pilot knows this.
Originally by: Typhado3 I really don't think the cap boosters need a buff, they already completely remove the penelty for an entire race with a single module.
They have only been made to scale with the overloaded duration decrease. Eitherway, the reload time specifically isn't a deal breaker, but it would be nice. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Alfred vonBoring
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 02:15:00 -
[13]
Done and done. I'm not entirely sure about the necessity of the capital nos or the cap booster reload duration change, but the others are excellent ideas on how to increase the utility of active tanking setups.
|
M Blanc
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 06:17:00 -
[14]
Would also like to see a reassessment of the penalties associated with active tanking rigs - one of the benefits of an active tank is supposed to be that you don't suffer the speed/sig penalties associated with a buffer tank. Slapping on a nanobot accelerator/aux nano pump kills your speed and is a disincentive to active tanking, especially on blaster boats which need all the speed they can get.
It would also be nice if the core defence capacitor safeguard were not stricly inferior to a ccc or smc; the cost difference is meaningless, so it would be good to have a more significant cap use reduction...
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 06:54:00 -
[15]
A return to active tanking has been one of my pet-peeves for quite some time, so hats off feeling the same way.
Critique: - The suggested numbers for repairers are far too low. The actual dps an overloaded rep is able to mitigate is more like 30-40% above normal, even if the repairer itself is operating at higher %'s. A single MARII on a cruiser is easily overwhelmed by a T1 frigate :( - Boosting overheating also does not prevent buffer tanking from being superior in almost all circumstances. - Attaching it to overheat only serves to give people with the skill (character and player) an edge over non-heaters. Unneccessary distinction.
Alternative: - Increase fitting requirements for ALL buffer modules by 50% (2 plates rather than 3). Actual sacrifice if buffering. Already have non-stacking rigs to boost further. - Decrease non-logistics fitted RR efficiency by 50%. You want to live? Better have local tank to augment up the RR. - Increase repair amount on all local modules by 50%+. - increase all NPC damage output to compensate (ratters/missions use active to begin with so pure number crunching)
Together with rigs, heat and decreased buffers this will make the Gallente repair bonus worth while again and let Hyperions/Brutixes do some good again. It will give value to cap warfare and dampening. Both of which are outclassed by ECM as RR/buffer is better than local and unless you neut/damp an entire gang it has no effect compared to the jam. The tanked ship will once again have an edge against the one but still fall to the many (no changing that I fear).
Point is, buffer tanking has such a massive advantage currently that active tanking will only be viable if buffers are decreased and reps increased, especially when rigs are factored in (actives buff rigs stack, buffers do not).
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 17:46:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Allen Ramses Supported.
On top of that, I would like to see armor reppers have their duration decreased by 20% so they can actually be useful, and powergrid usage reduced by 20% so they can actually be used.
I would also like to see cap usage for armor and shield reppers to be reduced by 25%, as they are too cap hungry to use for a prolonged period of time.
What he said
|
Liang Nuren
The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 18:30:00 -
[17]
Comments: - The nos changes seem unnecessary. It seems that in the Best Case, they become Yet Another Required Module to active tank. It is also a huge nerf to the Amarr recons. - Requiring overheating to make active tanking viable also seems unnecessary. Increasing the heat damage seems to work directly against the only situation in which active tanking was actually useful: sustained engagements - Your suggestion does nothing about one of the bigger reasons that people don't active tank: it's hell on your fittings - Your changes barely change the break even point for when it's better to active tank vs plate/passive tank. More on this below. - You're suggesting boosting cap boosters, Yet Another Required Module.
I appreciate that you're suggesting improvements to the game, but I'm not sure this is really the right way to go about it. IMO any first step would have to address the fittings disparity between plate/passive tanking and active tanking.
Consider a Cyclone (meant to be active tanked). There's two ways you can do it: with a Large booster or an XL booster.
Consider the Large booster: Large Shield Booster: 165 Grid / 115 CPU Med Cap Booster II: 165 Grid / 25 CPU Med Nos: 175 Grid / 16 CPU Total: 505 Grid / 156 CPU
LSB can be overheated for 1:30 for a 660 DPS tank once you include cap. Your changes would mean that it could overheat for ~1 minute (remember: +100% damage and a faster cycle time, requiring more capacitor and damaging faster) and tank 912 DPS.
Take said Cyclone in a fight against a buffered Brutix. The Brutix deals 830 DPS. Brutix TTK Cyclone: 60+ 29729/(831-517) = 154 sec Cyclone TTK Brutix: 102 sec
2 Brutix vs 2 Cyclones Brutixs TTK Cyclone 1: 29729 / (831*2 - 912) = 42 sec Cyclones TTK Brutix 1: 51 sec
So even in BCs (which are far and away the most common/likely "solo" and "super small gang" ships in Eve), we see that a second item on the battlefield utterly nullifies active tanking, even when you have an active tank bonus.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Cur
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.19 21:37:00 -
[18]
Instead of overheating, why not require a script?
Also, double the amount repaired while doubling capacitor use with reduced duration might be ideal.
I support the idea of active tank discussion, but the exact details are lacking.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 01:56:00 -
[19]
I think we should have a skill for the reload Make it a rank 5 or something.
Active Reload Decreases reload time for modules requiring charges by 20% per level
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:01:00 -
[20]
Originally by: ropnes I think we should have a skill for the reload Make it a rank 5 or something.
Active Reload Decreases reload time for modules requiring charges by 20% per level
this! ---- People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Space Vikings |
|
Hashin Kyojin
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 05:09:00 -
[21]
interesting
|
SHOCKZORS
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 08:28:00 -
[22]
Nuh Nuh Nuh! BattleRorq Boost!
|
wallenbergaren
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 09:15:00 -
[23]
What about a module that increases the amount of cap you recieve from cap transfers?
|
Haakelen
Angels.
|
Posted - 2009.09.20 09:50:00 -
[24]
|
Rudolf Miller
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.21 23:18:00 -
[25]
go go go
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 10:38:00 -
[26]
Ahem. ____ Domination Balance (Or how we fix the Tempest) |
Xorth Adimus
Caldari The Perfect Storm Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 13:36:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Comments: - The nos changes seem unnecessary. It seems that in the Best Case, they become Yet Another Required Module to active tank. It is also a huge nerf to the Amarr recons. - Requiring overheating to make active tanking viable also seems unnecessary. Increasing the heat damage seems to work directly against the only situation in which active tanking was actually useful: sustained engagements - Your suggestion does nothing about one of the bigger reasons that people don't active tank: it's hell on your fittings - Your changes barely change the break even point for when it's better to active tank vs plate/passive tank. More on this below. - You're suggesting boosting cap boosters, Yet Another Required Module.
I appreciate that you're suggesting improvements to the game, but I'm not sure this is really the right way to go about it. IMO any first step would have to address the fittings disparity between plate/passive tanking and active tanking.
Consider a Cyclone (meant to be active tanked). There's two ways you can do it: with a Large booster or an XL booster.
Consider the Large booster: Large Shield Booster: 165 Grid / 115 CPU Med Cap Booster II: 165 Grid / 25 CPU Med Nos: 175 Grid / 16 CPU Total: 505 Grid / 156 CPU
LSB can be overheated for 1:30 for a 660 DPS tank once you include cap. Your changes would mean that it could overheat for ~1 minute (remember: +100% damage and a faster cycle time, requiring more capacitor and damaging faster) and tank 912 DPS.
Take said Cyclone in a fight against a buffered Brutix. The Brutix deals 830 DPS. Brutix TTK Cyclone: 60+ 29729/(831-517) = 154 sec Cyclone TTK Brutix: 102 sec
2 Brutix vs 2 Cyclones Brutixs TTK Cyclone 1: 29729 / (831*2 - 912) = 42 sec Cyclones TTK Brutix 1: 51 sec
So even in BCs (which are far and away the most common/likely "solo" and "super small gang" ships in Eve), we see that a second item on the battlefield utterly nullifies active tanking, even when you have an active tank bonus.
-Liang
Exactly, STRPR.. more then just your local friendly roaming gank fest.. we really think about it too!
If active local tanking is to be more useful in PVP the wider issues need to be looked at, until then we will all keep sheild buffering small ships with logistics in support and armour tanking RRing battleships.
There are a number of ways this can be fixed, like resists being improved during module activation (it boosts more then hps perhaps for higher energy cost). Looking at fitting costs. Looking at glaring disparities between armour and shield tanking (difference is good.. making it utterly fail on ships designed for that task is not).
So this proposal, I don't agree with but I agree there is a general problem which makes fitting quite inflexable and fitting some ships in a way that uses active tank bonuses pretty much a bad idea, that is unless you fail fit.
|
Malena Panic
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 14:33:00 -
[28]
Full support! Furthermore, active tanking requires far more attention from the pilot than a passive tank and should be boosted accordingly. ... Stealth Bomber changes: a SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUE |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 21:38:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/09/2009 21:39:29 Hmm, this doesnt solve the core problem of active tanking, being that the active tank will fold in no time when more than one hostile is shooting it.
Having said that, I personally dont miss active tanks at all, as it did only favor a few select ships to begin with.
Besides it does still seem to work pretty well on the ships designed for it anyway, at least in those situations that favor active tanking over a buffer.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.27 21:54:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/09/2009 21:56:20 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 27/09/2009 21:55:40
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/09/2009 21:39:29 Hmm, this doesnt solve the core problem of active tanking, being that the active tank will fold in no time when more than one hostile is shooting it.
Having said that, I personally dont miss active tanks at all, as it did only favor a few select ships to begin with.
Besides it does still seem to work pretty well on the ships designed for it anyway, at least in those situations that favor active tanking over a buffer.
Preety much.
The problem is that boosting active tanking significantly is a complete nerf to anything solo. Most ships being buffered with a few notable exceptions (largely, tank bonused ships) makes for a far more solo friendly environment.
The few things I see as silly regarding active tanks: - the fact you can't run even a single rep on a PVP ship without cap boosting, and doing it often - fitting requirements a little steep - particularly CPU on shield boosters
Overall, not supported.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |