|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
367
   |
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
Nice, so by that fail ass logic, resistance bonus must be "Super overpowered" as well right? Or do you guys not actually do any kind of math over there at ccp.
For those that do not know (apparently you fozzie) a 7.5% rep bonus gives you just over a 3% advantage in active tank compared to a ship with a resistance bonus... This same "just over 3%" advantage would be present if the rep bonus effected incoming RR. Now compared to the ehp advantage a resistance bonus gives, this extremely modest increase in 2 out of the 3 areas probably still does not make up for the ehp advantage provided by the resistance bonus...
As for all these bad ideas in the OP... How about you fix stuff that is broken first, instead of trying to add bandaid skill and module fixes to an already overly crowded game... I've got a little secret on how you can do this... It's called fixing the damn base modules as people have been throwing out mathematically driven threadnaughts about this subject for 5+ years.
Actually, just go get tomb, I think you've shown you can't handle the tanking rebalance. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
367
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Sean Parisi wrote:I like the fact that you aren't homogenizing the Ancillary armor repper with the shield repper. In fact he does homogenize them. Armor tanking is not a burst tanking, and it shouldnt be! Reactive armor hardener - that is the right approach. I'd rather just revamped that module without inventing anything new. But no, CCP will skrew everything that was done before, they've found IWIN button. Could we have ancillary MWD? Ancillary lasers? Ancillary scram? Ancillary capacitor booster, ftw! Sure, new people, new ideas - THEIR ideas - and who cares about the experiense, the lore, the metagame...
Don't forget, all these modules should only be available in tech 1. That way no one has to make any choices when fitting them.
I think fozzie needs to be ousted as balance dev tbh |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
369
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:And why are trimarks/resist rigs still have a speed penalty, my underpowered buffer Punisher isnt aloud to go above 900m/s but the overpowered Incursus can go as fast as it likes 
Agreed. Trimarks should be mass penatly as additional weight does not decrease speed outside of terribad physics models (aka eve). Resistance rigs should do something else entirely when it comes to drawbacks, your ship slowing down because your armor is "harder" just does not make much sense.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
371
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
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.
How about you pull the entire proposal and go ahead and fix existing core issues rather than applying band aid lazy developer fixes.
simply not impressed.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
373
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 19:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:Nikuno wrote:
Any change that prevents the standard and absolutely necessary dual lar fit for missioning is going to create a massive outcry of rage not heard since the Jita riots.
No its not. Get a 3% pg implant they are very cheap.
Which takes place of a rep implant, you fail.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
374
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 19:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Fozzie,
May I suggest nerfing the **** out of armored warfare links and building some of that bonus into all armor reps? I'm not asking to make linked active tanking better (though that'd certainly be welcome) - just move a lot of the viability out of the links and into the base modules themselves.
I strongly support this change however I think it needs to apply to ALL tanking links, obviously including shield and skirmish sig reduction.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
374
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 20:33:00 -
[7] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Essentially, if you could use the rep at 3/4 t1 amount until you activate the ancillary reps to give you a boost to repping when you most want it, rather than just at the beginning of the cycle, it would be a much better module!
In before "our terrible ui prevents simplistic mechanics like this"
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
375
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 22:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
"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."
Sorry fozzie, but the only service it provided was to completely turn the current balance of the game upside down... ASBs have honestly done nothing positive for the game other than making omg bbq setups that even further break the disparity between pilots with links and not. Also, no one really uses normal shield boosters for pvp anymore....
ASB was a mistake from day one, if you and the rest of your team have trouble understanding this it's because you're simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring any kind of reason.
There is no reason to add "a new flavor to armor tanking" when the current flavor is broken at it's core. Go and fix broken stuff before you do something silly like adding new overpowered t1 only bandaid crap.
"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."
The solution is to either un gimp other tanking bonuses, or simply nerf the extremely overpowered resistance bonus... There is a reason resistance bonus ships have been the mainstay in fleets in the past and will be for the foreseeable future... |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
394
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 06:07:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vizvig wrote:If today hyperions perma tanking 2-3k DPS, how we will be counter them tomorrow?
You have to think about it.
The same way you do now, a few nuets.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
394
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 06:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Good start, now increase the base repair amount by 10% and decrease cycle time and cap use by 10% on both MARS and LARS and let's test that.
Far too large of a buff imo. Cap usage and faction/dead space progression should be the next step.
|
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
394
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 13:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Roime wrote:
I withdraw my argument of med & large reppers not needing a rep amount buff and do my theorycrafting in a spreadsheet from now on.
I'd say that a modest increase to rep amount (no more than 10%) as well as a small decrease in cap consumption should be in order. Combined with the reduction in grid of medium and large reppers this should be enough to make the modules competitive w/o making anything glaringly over powered.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
396
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 15:45:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nikuno wrote:
Split buttons are unlikely as it'd be a new function added solely for this module, but a script might be more realistic.
CCP does not even know how to add a timer to their module UI, I highly doubt the suggested script will ever come to fruition.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
397
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 17:33:00 -
[13] - Quote
Captain Semper wrote:
I will never fit thorax in armor tank becuase it is totaly uneffective for now. Thorax was created for roam and in roam you need speed, burst damage and lit tank.
So... Where i should use "new" 800mm plates?
Dual web rax is bar none the best rax for solo/small scale pvp.
The increase in speed and dps of the shield ship means jack **** when you can be easily killed by a t1 frig, just saying...
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
399
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 12:57:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lebaneur wrote:As far as I could tell nothing to test yet on Sisi after todays patch... No new mods, skills or changes apparent.
Any ETA on geting these into testing?
As far as I can tell the power grid changes to medium and large armor reppers have gone through however the pen change on active armor rigs is still speed instead of grid pen. This seems a bit counter productive to me...
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
400
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
fukier wrote:
that seems fair since the mod does not stack right?
It has a stacking pen with damage controls.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
400
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 13:14:00 -
[16] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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".
I know this is a bit off topic however... I was wondering if you and your team have been looking at the effectiveness of nos and intend on any changes in the near or distant future. Thanks fozzie!
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
401
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 17:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Commander Ted wrote:How come I can't fit more than one AAR? I can fit multiple oversized ASB modules that use zero capacitor, but not multiple armor reppers?
It's a simple admittance that listening to the community when it comes to the introduction of new modules produced for a fail "new modules idea" sticky thread was an astoundingly "mongoloidish" idea.
The reality is that ccp is finally beginning to pull their heads out of the communal ass they've been stuck in for so many years. In essence, don't expect CCP to correct unquestionable mistakes of the past by introducing more content destroying "content". |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
401
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 13:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote:
While i agree shields are vastly superior i must mention armor got active hardeners too. Just not omni. And that makes big difference.
You need 1 of each specific hardener to equal the effectiveness of 2 invulns. 4 slots vs 2 slots does make a big difference.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
402
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 18:22:00 -
[19] - Quote
With just 5 days till the release of 1.1 it seems much of these changes are more or less set in stone...
Fozzie, I find it rather disheartening that outside of a modest decrease in grid requirements, there have been no real changes to standard reppers. AAR are cool and all but I think you've dropped the ball on addressing some of the major concerns that have been voiced by the most experienced this community has to offer over the past 4+ years. You did not even mention the imbalance in the progression of deadspace reppers vs boosters which to me indicates you and your cohorts have done a rather sloppy job. Beyond the vast imbalance in hp per second, you missed another major issue with the dead space comparison which ends up putting the cap efficiency in favor of shield mods instead of armor reppers which is beyond short sighted. You guys need to actually start running numbers on the entirety of the comparison, not just selectively choosing what you want to focus on.
Overall I must say that this active armor tanking "buff" is nothing more than gimmick. Not impressed in the slightest. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
408
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 15:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
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.
So no word on the imbalance in the progression of strength and even cap efficiency between dead space armor reppers and shield boosters?
Fozzie... This is one of the largest imbalances in this entire tanking equation... You guys need to at least take a stance on it.
|
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
410
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 12:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
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. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 12:21:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nick Bison wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. This is really unfortunate. If anything, you should be boosting the bonuses on active tanking ships to 10% instead of nerfing the already-good Incursus. It's just another example of "The Man" keeping the Gallente down. Just can't give us a break, can you? 
The actual solution is to just buff the armor reppers by a small margin, and nerf the 5% resistance bonus to a 4% resistance bonus.... The issue with a 10% rep per level on a t1 hull is that it makes the bonus nearly required for reppers to be effective. Sure, a 10% bonus does address the fail balance between resistance and rep amount however the problem has more to do with the resistance bonus being extremely OP rather than the rep bonus being bad.
Like I said... Buff the reppers, and nerf the resistance bonus to actually fix the problem.
|
|
|
| |
|