|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Plyn
Dominatus Imperium
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 20:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Modify bonus to armor repair effectiveness to include remote repairs.
Active and passive tank will never be balanced otherwise, and even with this change active tanked ships might actually become OP. Actual percentage of effectiveness increase would have to be taken into consideration during testing and balancing to find a number that gives a worthwhile bonus without being too powerful.
The design vision of the game is for there to be ships which are fundamentally different. In some cases the active vs passive tank concept is what that difference is. The crux of the problem arises when gangs become large enough for logis to be used. After a certain threshold of ships remote reps will always be more efficient and realistic than local tanks. Once you cross this threshold, which isn't actually all that high, the ships which have the active tank bonuses lose the usefulness of that bonus while the ships with the passive tank bonus continue to enjoy that bonus.
For this reason when you see 20+ man armor fleets you can bet there will be a ton more amarr than gallente ships in their comp. It's just the smarter choice. Hossenfeffer. |
Plyn
Dominatus Imperium
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 20:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Plyn wrote:Modify bonus to armor repair effectiveness to include remote repairs. You mean incoming repairs, right? Yes. The bonus would apply to your local reppers as well as the reps that were coming into you from another ship. Make them easier for logi to heal, not turn them into logi themselves lol. Hossenfeffer. |
Plyn
Dominatus Imperium
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 18:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Iris Bravemount wrote:Still no dev input for this? What kind of input are you expecting? The maths behind it isn't exactly rocket science. They already know this. Hmm, maybe an explanation as to why they keep it that way? Because ships need to be fundamentally different. The game would be boring if everything were completely identical. There's a small handful of ship-types that break this rule because certain roles create situations where an exception is necessary.
Also, while I'm sure devs read like all of these posts, dev feedback on this board is rare at best. Hossenfeffer. |
Plyn
Dominatus Imperium
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.07 21:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:No, it doesn't. You're still missing the fundamental points that ships should be balanced, not bonuses, and that non-resist-bonused ships are well represented on the fleet scale. Stop this silly theorycrafting and deal with reality. The problem exists solely in your imagination. Saying that non resist bonused ships are represented is a bit of a red herring here. The argument isn't that resist bonuses are king and every ship that doesn't have them is trash. The argument is that resist and rep bonused ships fall into the same category of "Ships which are designed to be tankier than average". The roles these ships should be filling are supposed to be similar or the same, just differing in their racial "flavor". It is argued that one side of this category appears to be a lot better than the other. Hossenfeffer. |
Plyn
Dominatus Imperium
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 14:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:... So what? Balance ships, not tanks. Balancing ships that are designed to fill the role of tank requires balancing tanks. A ship's ability to tank is pretty vital to its individual level of balance, so I'm not sure how discussing the tank shouldn't be part of the balancing discussion.
I think the reason this isn't being discussed on a per ship basis (aside from supporting examples) is because the perceived imbalance can be observed across many different ship types. For basically any Gallente or Minmatar ship with an active tank bonus you can point at a passive Amarr or Caldari ship with the same type and role, and say that you think the latter will always have the more versatile tank.
The OP has hyperbolized their argument somewhat, but the fact that active tank bonused ships show up in fleet fights doesn't discount the argument that the passive tank bonused ships have an advantage in that environment. I'd probably be fine with this if it were spottier and the difference less common, but the active vs passive tank philosophies are currently tied to racial flavors, showing up across the board.
The Gallente and Minmatar "tank" ships aren't completely painted into a corner, there are just common situations where they appear hobbled in comparison to their sisters in the same role. Hossenfeffer. |
Plyn
Dominatus Imperium
57
|
Posted - 2013.04.14 22:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:Iris Bravemount wrote:
Well, if you have 99% resistance, and are shot at by a gun dealing 200 damage, you take 2 points of damage. If you have 99,5% resistance, and are shot at by a gun dealing 200 damage, you take 1 point of damage.
You basically halve the amount of damage taken. I don't see this as a waste of a module.
Fair enough. But still... 1) A lot of missions run longer than 6 minutes (using the prophecy/myr example. +/- for other contrasts) 2) A lot of people return to stations in the middle of a mission, which instantly makes armor rep bonuses win, since they "break even" with resist bonuses in about 20 seconds when you are repping but nobody is shooting at you. So if nothing else, armor rep bonus ships are better for tanking missions than resist ones are.
Hate arguments like this. Almost any ship can tank appropriate PvE situations fine because you know the incoming damage types beforehand, and can therefore super resist those types in preparation. So, since both t1 cruisers can complete the same mission in the same amount of time, without returning to station because having a resist bonused ship doesn't mean you shouldn't still fit reppers, neither is really better at PvE, just have to be fit in slightly different ways.
Also, making huge swathes of ships from certain races inferior at large aspects of PvP because they are better at PvE (not really, see above paragraph) only paints players into corners about what parts of the game they are allowed to participate in. This is obviously not the real intention of the devs. Hossenfeffer. |
|
|
|