|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3267
   |
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Is my title pretentious enough?
We've got the resources all properly committed so I'm now ready to share with you all our initial plan to fix some of the biggest problems that face armor tanking in this game. Sorry for the extended period of teasing, hopefully the happy ending will make it all worthwhile.
I was going to go into this big spiel about all the problems with armor tanking in general and active armor tanking in particular, but you all know this so I'll jump straight to the interesting bits.
Here's what we're looking for feedback on:
Armor Rigs
- New rig called the Nanobot Overcharger that increased the overheat bonus on your local armor reps by 30% (40% for T2). So with one of the T1 rigs overheating gives the rep 13% more rep amount and 19.5% faster rate of fire instead of the default 10% and 15% respectively. This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig.
- Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.
Plates
- Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3)
- Reduce the mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%
Ancillary Armor Repairer
- Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
- Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
- When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
- Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
- Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
- Limited to one per ship
Quick Q&A about the AAR:
Why limited to one per ship?The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR.
Why keep the cap use consistent?The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further.
Why not just buff all armor reps?One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.
So we are very interested in hearing your feedback on this proposal. Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3275
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Does the nanobot overcharger work on capital reps?
No, although I'm hoping to do a more focused pass on capital tanking at some future point with one of the goals being to make bonuses consistent between capital and non-capital reps (without breaking everything)
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3284
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
TruthState wrote:Upset about 2k8 nano nerf.
Fix nanos, not my fault most of the eve player base is ********* as **** and ccant take a **** **** ****** up the *******. In short go **** ****** icelandic ***, fix nanos.
danke
inb4 suspension
This is the wrong thread friend.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3284
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:sounds all very interesting, two things which came in my mind while reading:
- faction plates should be revisited. they have been forgotten as the T2 plates where balanced
- wouldn't a "Ancillary Resistance Booster" be more interesting for armor as a ancillary reper?
cool stuff! certainly looking forward to the changes
- All faction stuff is in need of a balance pass, however I cannot give a date for such.
- ARB would be very powerful but I didn't want to buff armor resistance tanking in fleets further than it already is
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3284
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Xenuria wrote:I have a question, what about 1600mm Plates? Why are they excluded from the bonus? I personally never use anything smaller than those for plates.
The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus 
The 800mm and 200mm change is to help narrow that gap a bit (I know it doesn't narrow it all the way) and the 50mm change is there just to keep OCD people happy.
1600s still get the benefit of the new skill.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3284
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Two step wrote:Legash Silden wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Plates
Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3)
Reduce the mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%
If i'm reading this correctly, 1600 plates are unaffected by the new skill? That would definitely be a small step towards making other plates viable - though tbh 1600s will most likely still dominate. No, the skill effects all plates, and the listed plates get a base mass reduction as well (without the skill)
I have updated the OP to hopefully make that more clear.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3309
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Heimdallofasgard wrote:Just reading over these changes again... my beloved ishkur fit will not be possible after these changes due to a PG issue... here's how it currently sits: FitAnd that's with ions :( ... looks like I'll have to refit to electrons post patch :(
These changes would only increase the PG need of that fit by between 0.5 and 0.25 (depending on your armor rigging skill). Still fits.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3309
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
tgl3 wrote:With regards to the AAR -
"Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper"
Does this also include when being "fuelled" by a cap booster? If so, that means that cap boosters only fuel the increased rep amount, right?
This is correct.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3309
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
xo3e wrote:lold
so :ccp:
are you even playing your own game?
armor is so bad not because reps rep nothing or because buffer is insufficient.
the problem with armor is generally because majority of armor boats cant do shet against kiting
and it follows that you cant escape shet when you need to. and all your super-slaved-buffers-with-bonus-legion will not help you.
im talking about solo-to-small-scale warfare.
If only we were letting you reduce the mass penalty of all your plates by 25%, and for active tankers remove the speed penalty on the rigs? That would be great maybe we should do that. 
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3323
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed?
It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction.
There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it.
You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3323
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
I updated the OP with something that is connected but that I forgot to put in at first since it isn't a main part of the changes.
At the same time as these changes we'd be reducing the Incrusus rep bonus to 7.5% to keep things sane.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3323
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
fukier wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:IamBeastx wrote:So your screwing over active tanking armor ships by limiting there PG for weaponry: Or are you changing the PG requirements of reppers?
I see no changes to buffer fits, are we gonna still be fat and slow when we fit trimarks/resists, why aren't you changing buffer?
This over complicated AAR does not entice me to active armor tank anything with a small cargohold., what calculations have you done in reference to increased cap booster cargo space needed? It's far easier to get around a slight PG reduction than the speed reduction. There's a whole section entitled Plates you should probably read it. You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission. how come you avoid talking about scaleability of active armor rep bonus and how its useless in fleet warfare? its an easy fix just make the skill affect external incomming armor RR! presto now the bonus is usefull for anything larger then 5 ships!
And also super overpowered.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3337
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 19:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:You completely free to not use the AAR on ships with small cargoholds, I give you permission. Do you have any plans to take a look at the Proteus' cargo bay with the armor tanking subsystem? It doesn't have enough space for normal cap boosting, let alone AARs. IIRC there are several other Gallente ships that are expected to active tank and have relatively tiny cargobays. -Liang
We're taking a look at cargoholds and making adjustments as we move through the classes. It's no coincidence that the Brutix gained cargohold in the BC changes.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3354
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:12:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:I may have goofed with the maths, but the Nanobot Overcharger rigs look distinctly underwhelming. On an unrigged ship, heating a rep increases your HP/second by 29% (1.1x rep amount/0.85x cycle time). With an NO, that goes up to a 40% increase on heating (1.13x rep amount/0.805x cycle time). Unless I've done the maths wrong, that means there's never a situation where the NO is better than an auxiliary nano pump outside of potential edge cases where you're running into massive stacking penalties (triple nano pumps? does anyone do this?):
Unheated rep, no rigs: 1x rep amount
Unheated rep + heat rig: 1x rep amount
Unheated + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.15x rep amount
Heated rep, no rigs: 1.29x rep amount
Heated rep + heat rig: 1.4x rep amount
Heated rep + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.48x rep amount (1.29x rep amount for heat times 1.15x rep amount for the nano pump)
Your math is correct, my math was wrong. I had been approximating the rigs in our internal test server using stat changed modules and had gotten the math wrong on the bonus. To hit the benefits I was aiming for, the rig will double the heat bonus at tech one.
That's what I get for posting before all the authoring challenges are worked out, but thanks for catching it now instead of someone having to catch it later.
I've updated the OP
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3358
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
B'reanna wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Tsubutai wrote:I may have goofed with the maths, but the Nanobot Overcharger rigs look distinctly underwhelming. On an unrigged ship, heating a rep increases your HP/second by 29% (1.1x rep amount/0.85x cycle time). With an NO, that goes up to a 40% increase on heating (1.13x rep amount/0.805x cycle time). Unless I've done the maths wrong, that means there's never a situation where the NO is better than an auxiliary nano pump outside of potential edge cases where you're running into massive stacking penalties (triple nano pumps? does anyone do this?):
Unheated rep, no rigs: 1x rep amount
Unheated rep + heat rig: 1x rep amount
Unheated + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.15x rep amount
Heated rep, no rigs: 1.29x rep amount
Heated rep + heat rig: 1.4x rep amount
Heated rep + auxiliary nano pump I: 1.48x rep amount (1.29x rep amount for heat times 1.15x rep amount for the nano pump) Your math is correct, my math was wrong. I had been approximating the rigs in our internal test server using stat changed modules and had gotten the math wrong on the bonus. To hit the benefits I was aiming for, the rig will double the heat bonus at tech one. That's what I get for posting before all the authoring challenges are worked out, but thanks for catching it now instead of someone having to catch it later. I've updated the OP and what about readjusting the active arour tanking ships pg? so that they cane still be reasonably fit with the armor rigs? also will the rigg penalty changes be effecting the other our rigs or just the active tanking ones? and then how does this balance with the asb which atm can fit more than one, cant be nueted off like the aar, and has more base rep tan the aar?
The PG penalty is actually very mild and much easier to get around than the speed penalty.
The rig penalties for trimarks and resist rigs are staying the same.
And the AAR has less burst rep and more cap use than the ASB with the benefit of significantly better sustainability. If we need to tweak the stats after playtesting we definitely can.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3358
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 20:22:00 -
[16] - Quote
Roime wrote:Quote:This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig. Stacked with what, only with itself or the other two rigs as well? Do rigs affect AAR cycle time? Quick check looks like 10-slot AAR+MAR II tank is finally better than 4-slot dual XLASB on an all V's Myrmidon.
Stacked with itself since nothing else affects armor rep heat bonus atm.
And AARs are affected by everything that affect subcap armor reps.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3496
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 11:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Just wanted to check in and say I've read all the posts I missed overnight, and after I get a few other things done at work I'm coming back to draft a more sizable reply to some of the issues and questions brought up so far.
As always thanks to you all for taking the time to give us feedback.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3517
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3523
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dzajic wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Larger reply is still coming but I just want to quickly note that we're pulling the Overheating rig from this proposal until further notice.
As always thanks for all your comments on it. I started off with an early mistake with this rig and we're not going to re-add it unless it's properly balanced. Can you please also reconsider Incursus nerf till further notice? It would be terrible shame if AARs got delayed or changed to something more reasonable and the little frig got its bonus nerfed for no reason. Please! :(
We're not going to apply the Incursus change if significant parts of this proposal get delayed, don't worry. They go hand in hand.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3554
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 21:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ok I'm going to respond to some themes from the thread so far.
Firstly I want to assure everyone that whatever we end up releasing in 1.1 will not be the end of the line. We'll be continuing to iterate on tanking in many different ways from patch to patch.
Also yesterday I was overly curt and snarky with some of my replies, I apologize for that as it made our communication more difficult instead of easier.
Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus
There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address.
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
In addition, my comment about the power level of active bonuses applying to remote reps was both unclear and exaggerated which was a mistake on my part. I have absolutely no desire to increase the effectiveness of T2 Logistics ships in fleets beyond their current state, or to push fleet warfare further in the direction of alpha being the only resort for breaking reps. Filling in the lower-end with less powerful repping ships that provide an upgrade path is another story, but I don't want to move beyond the current maximum. The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments.
Differences between Shield and Armor tanking as a whole
There has been a lot of discussion around the major differences between shield and armor tanking. The use of lowslots vs midslots, reps hitting at the start vs end of cycle, sig vs mass, crystals and slaves are some of the splits that separate armor and shield tanking and that can seriously complicate balancing. I am of the opinion that as much as possible the armor and shield tanking need to stay distinct, but this does not mean there are not areas where changes must happen. The gap between low and midslot tanking is affected by the balance between low and midslot modules such as for instance the TE and TCs. The rep at the start of the cycle is a major advantage for shield tanks that needs to be countered by corresponding advantages for armor tanks and armor tanking ships. Both signature and speed play major roles in the tracking formula, but the ability for the faster ship to dictate range, control the engagement and manipulate transversal more effectively make speed the much more important attribute overall. Getting signature where it needs to be in more situations is a longstanding desire of mine that is going to take time. These changes as proposed do not get us all the way there, will likely require changes before release and even then will only be one step forward that must be followed up on later.
Addition of new skills and modules
Many people have expressed objections to the addition of new skills and modules to the game rather than rolling all the changes into existing modules. I understand the feeling many people have that skills create a gap between older and new players, but that logic can be applied to any existing skills as well. Skill systems in games like Eve do provide a certain advantage gained over time, but the diminishing returns over levels helps to balance the playing field. I disagree that Armor Upgrades is any more a "must train skill" than any other support skill, and many players will find quickly training it to level 2-3 will get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player at a far lower time commitment. Also note that half the plates are receiving mass reductions completely unconnected to the skill.
As for the new module and rig, I agree that in general having fewer modules/ships/features that all work is better than having many that don't. However we feel that these additions open up useful design space by allowing the tanking mechanics to be influenced in different ways. As flawed as it was in many ways I do think the ASB provided a useful service by adding a new line of burst-oriented tanking modules that can be balanced in their own way. Modules built towards burst tanking will be definition overshadow other tanking types in many pvp scenarios, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing as long as sustained tanking systems have their own effective uses in the game. The AAR is a unique mechanic that fills the same general game niche as the ASB while remaining quite different in operation and gameplay. It does put more pressure on cargoholds, however keep in mind that an AAR goes through cap boosters much much slower than an ASB.
Heat is a mechanic that I think has been underutilized over the years by CCP, but I don't want to rely on it as the only method of burst tanking.
Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.
Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.
Limiting oversized mods as a way to simplify balancing
I completely agree that limiting more modules to certain ship sizes would make my life easier. :)
However giving people the freedom to be creative with fits is part of what makes Eve so great and I don't want to lose that. It's going to take more work and more time but finding a balance without unnecessarily removing player choice is the ideal we're shooting for.
The overheat...
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:51:00 -
[21] - Quote
A few updates:
We're switching the AAR to use nanite repair paste instead of cap boosters. What we're looking at now is for them to hold 8 reps worth of paste, with the smalls eating 1 per cycle, the mediums eating 5 and the larges eating 10.
I'm also investigating our options for reducing the base powergrid need for medium and large armor reps a bit.
We're aiming to have all of this on Sisi before the weekend. Please note that just because things are on Sisi doesn't mean they can no longer change. It just means we want to give people a chance to try it out in the game client.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3617
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:A few updates:
We're switching the AAR to use nanite repair paste instead of cap boosters. What we're looking at now is for them to hold 8 reps worth of paste, with the smalls eating 1 per cycle, the mediums eating 5 and the larges eating 10.
I'm also investigating our options for reducing the base powergrid need for medium and large armor reps a bit.
We're aiming to have all of this on Sisi before the weekend. Please note that just because things are on Sisi doesn't mean they can no longer change. It just means we want to give people a chance to try it out in the game client. Dear CCP Fozzie and Yitterbium, did one of you by any chance took a look at my recent proposal? And if yes, what do you think? I didn't want armor tankers to take over New Eden but I also would like to a larger Incursus some day  As for numbers, I'm glad I was able to catch up after being away for a day. Anyway I like numbers, I hope you do too? Right now our medium armor repair module I needs 150 powergrid and the tech2 one needs 175 powergrid, so don't we meet in the middle and say that AAR would need powergrid in a range of 155-165 powergrid and we would go a tiny bit lower on the tech1 and tech2 module in a range of let's say Medium Armor Repairer I -> 130 powergrid and the Medium Armir Repairer II -> 145 powergrid and maybe this summer we get some nicer numbers on the larger ones too? Large Armor Repairer I -> 1600 powergrid (no battlecruiser or Tengu will be able to fit this anyway) Large Armor Repairer II -> 1850 powergrid? As with any information you read here, these are merely suggestions and I am not in charge of things!
Reducing medium and large armor rep cycle time is definitely an option, either for 1.1 or in a subsequent iteration.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3634
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 21:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:
1. Does it rep at the lower 3/4 level while it reloads or does it deactivate?
While reloading the module cannot cycle.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3668
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 19:35:00 -
[24] - Quote
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:How did we regress from Armor Tanking 2.0 down to 1.5.....? Too much stupidity in the thread?
I think the 2.0 title was giving people the false impression that CCP will try to tie a bow on armor and leave it alone for years after this patch. Which is not even remotely the case, although I can understand the fear.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3689
|
Posted - 2013.01.25 17:10:00 -
[25] - Quote
New update, we're planning at the moment to reduce the powergrid use on medium and large armor reps.
Mediums by 20%
Larges by 10%
We were hoping to get these and all the other latest versions of the changes up on Sisi today, but we had an unrelated issue with our Sisi build system. ETA for Sisi is as soon as possible, sorry for the delay.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3781
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:56:00 -
[26] - Quote
Hey guys, all the changes in the OP are now on Sisi, with two exceptions:
- AARs are not on the market yet. In the meantime I dropped some cans and wrecks outside the station with some for people to test right now, they should be on the market next update.
- AARs can currently be fitted multiple to a ship. We have this fixed internally but that fix did not get into this recent Sisi update.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3801
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 20:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Thanks for the report with the Hyperion. Its bonus to rep amount was being applied in a different and less clean way than most other rep bonuses and that was indeed not applying to the AAR. I'm updating the affected effects now.
The Myrm bonus uses the correct effect and I've tested it both in our internal test server as well as just now on Sisi. It's working fine as far as I can see.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3805
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 21:57:00 -
[28] - Quote
DJWiggles wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the report with the Hyperion. Its bonus to rep amount was being applied in a different and less clean way than most other rep bonuses and that was indeed not applying to the AAR. I'm updating the affected effects now.
The Myrm bonus uses the correct effect and I've tested it both in our internal test server as well as just now on Sisi. It's working fine as far as I can see. I havnet tried all boats but will do once im off the radio
We're aware that the Hype, Paladin, Kronos and Vangel, as well as Exile boosters are broken on that Sisi build. All fixed internally.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3820
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 15:42:00 -
[29] - Quote
Crazy KSK wrote:has the Overheating Rig been turned into nanite paste or are we gonna see it soon on sisi?
The overheating rig won't make it into 1.1 as we want to make sure we have enough time to polish the rest of the features. Expect it to pop up again however.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3824
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 19:32:00 -
[30] - Quote
Aralieus wrote:@CCP Fozzie
Not sure if this has been asked yet but will the skills Nanite Operation and Nanite Interfacing have any effect on the AAR and the way we use it?
Nope those skills will continue to just affect repairing of heat damaged modules.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3831
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:11:00 -
[31] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:Few minutes ago i tested AAR...
Is it ok that AAR still need cap for use even if it charged? What a point make one more simple armor repair if 1 neut counter you "mega burst armor tank"?
This is the whole point of the AAR, as stated clearly in the OP.
It modulates rep but not cap use, because we're at or past our limit for "game mechanics that other players cannot influence".
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3834
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 14:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
Just so you all know the Sisi update today put the AARs on the market and fixed all the outstanding defects and bugs we have had reported up to now.
Feel free to go play with them.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3849
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 14:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
A lot of questions have been coming in concerning alternate modes for the AAR such as being able to toggle the more powerful rep. That's not something we can do for 1.1 and we'd have to take time to consider it more fully but I won't rule out the idea.
One change we have decided to make is slightly decreasing the Paste consumption of the medium and large AARs. We'll have the mediums eat 4 per cycle and the larges eat 8.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3850
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 16:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:A lot of questions have been coming in concerning alternate modes for the AAR such as being able to toggle the more powerful rep. That's not something we can do for 1.1 and we'd have to take time to consider it more fully but I won't rule out the idea. Any chance that we will see regular reps being loaded with nano-paste, in the future?
Anything is possible.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3868
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 19:22:00 -
[35] - Quote
Creating T2 versions of any number of the Inferno/Retri prototype modules is definitely an option, I don't think CCP Soniclover has made any hard decisions about when and what the next steps will be with them quite yet.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3938
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 02:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:http://www.eveonline.com/retribution/battlecruisers-rebalanced/ This page says: Quote:Armor Repairers GÇô Powergrid usage of Armor Repairers has been reduced by 10% for medium modules and 20% for large modules. Original message here is: Quote:Armor Reps:New:
Reduce the Powergrid requirements of all Medium Armor Repair units by 20%
Reduce the Powergrid requirements of all Large Armor Repair units by 10% CCP Fozzie, which one is correct?
This thread is correct, the feature page is a typo which we are in the process of fixing. Sorry for the confusion.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3946
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 00:22:00 -
[37] - Quote
Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th.
I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1.
As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3972
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 17:48:00 -
[38] - Quote
Starts making notes about sandwich armor......
mmmmmmmmmm
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
1615
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 20:07:00 -
[39] - Quote
fukier wrote:Palovana wrote:Seriously, CCP, WTF?
It makes it sound like we're firing milk cannons at each other.
What's next? Armor Weetabixing?
Increases resistance to becoming soggy in milk by 2% per level.
"Armor Mass Reduction" or something like that sounds much better. no no no... if they came up with normal names the first time then foxfour would be out of a job.
And so my job security continues. :D
Game Designer | Team True Grit |
|
|
CCP Complex
C C P
C C P Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:15:00 -
[40] - Quote
So what you're saying is that you'd like for it to be called Armor Waffling, right?
CCP Complex-á|| -áEVE Marketing Team-á|| Capture Artist-á|| @CCP_Complex |
|
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3958
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:33:00 -
[41] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:
Any idea when we can expect that overheating armor rig? The changes to active armor tanking feel somewhat lacking without it.
Go test it live, it feels fine as is right now. They could do a few more things, but none of that is related to heat. The thing that concerns me is that I heard today that the AAR's might not make it in next week, which of course would seriously suck because to tease all the people that have waited so long for armor tanking to be a thing is going to make more than a few people super mad
Everything that is currently in the OP of this thread is coming with 1.1 on the 19th.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3958
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 23:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th. I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1. As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th. Any idea when we can expect that overheating armor rig? The changes to active armor tanking feel somewhat lacking without it.
You guys all how this stuff works by now  , I'm not going to mention specific patches until I'm sure I can hit them. Anything else just sets up expectations we may not be able to meet.
So the official answer is maybe someday, maybe not, we'll do our best.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3983
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 09:14:00 -
[43] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Edward Pierce wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening. A reminder that, as we announced in the news update from last week, Retribution 1.1. with these changes will be releasing Feb 19th, as opposed to the earlier scheduled Feb 12th. I also want to let you all know that at this point we will only be making changes for critical defects, and the design for the Armor changes as currently listed in the OP will be releasing with 1.1. As I said before, this is not the end of our work on tanking in EVE, but I believe it will be a useful step forward and I hope you all enjoy it once it hits on the 19th. Any idea when we can expect that overheating armor rig? The changes to active armor tanking feel somewhat lacking without it. You guys all how this stuff works by now , I'm not going to mention specific patches until I'm sure I can hit them. Anything else just sets up expectations we may not be able to meet. So the official answer is maybe someday, maybe not, we'll do our best. Absolutely nooo chance you could squeaze in a itsy tiny bitsy nos buff? ^^
Not in the patch on the 19th
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3985
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 10:59:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jalxan wrote:Hey Fozzie. :) Can you respond to my post earlier on this page in the thread? I have concerns about the huge cost of using the planned AAR module. Sorry to be persistent, but this can be a significant deal breaker for this module.
Compared to using faction boosters with an ASB the cost of the AAR use is not unreasonable. Remember that armor repairers cycle more slowly than shield boosters, and therefore use their charges more slowly and an ASB.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
3989
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Fozzie... Still no response on the imbalance in progression of dead space shield boosters vs armor reppers? What's the deal man? Should I simply assume that you and your team think the current implementation of these modules is working at intended? If so, then I've come to the conclusion that simple mathematical comparisons are not exactly your strong suite. Please prove me wrong.
I know I keep posting about this specific topic... However this is what I consider the MAJOR issue in balance between the tanking types, please take a stance on this one way or the other.
There are a ton of things with broken balance in this game, and yes the balance between high metalevel shield and armor mods is one of them.
However since I can't really commit to any timing for anything beyond next Tuesday I've been trying to focus on discussing the changes we have ready for 1.1.
So yes we know it's a problem, but I can't say anything more without setting unreasonable expectations.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
|
|
| |
|