EVE Search - [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 45 post(s)
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 268	Posted - 2013.01.22 12:35:00 - [1] - Quote Takeshi Yamato wrote: Oversized modules need to go. They make it impossible to get the balance right. I disagree because oversizing in shields is actually necessary for balance due to the value of mid slots. The only thing needed for nerfing oversizing should be to the drawbacks they provide. An oversized extender should blow your sig much more than a standard size. This already happens with mass/speed with oversized plates.
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 269	Posted - 2013.01.22 12:37:00 - [2] - Quote Apostrof Ahashion wrote: And please use nano paste instead of cap boosters for Ancillary Armor Repairer. I would have thought that combining cap booster charges with nano paste for "armour repairer fuel blocks" would have been a much better idea Also gives extra industry to make them. Same should be done with ASB's but using cap booster charges and something else like a PI product to make "Shield Booster Fuel Blocks"
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 269	Posted - 2013.01.22 13:00:00 - [3] - Quote Ok. Adjustments to armour plates. Good. Adjustments to rigs. I need to look into this further. Active Tanking: Active armour tanking cycles slower with larger boosts per cycle for better efficiency and lower HP/s Active shield tanking cycles faster with smaller boosts per cycle for lower efficiency and higher HP/s The main issue I have with active tanking are the numbers when talking about efficiency. Armour repairers are supposed to be more efficient than Shield Boosters. However, if we look into active tanking on the whole it looks like this: Active armour tanking tends to be "Dual Rep Fit". This is fairly normal and in order for an active shield tank to compete it is allowed (due to fitting) to oversize the shield booster and fit a "Shield Boost Amp" to fill the gap. T2 Armour Rep modules provide 2 HP/ Cap unit per module. Dual reps provide approx 70 HP/s @ 2 HP/ Cap unit T2 Shield Boost modules provide 1.5 HP/ Cap unit per module Single oversized Shield boost + amp provide approx 81.5 HP/s @ 2.3 HP/ Cap unit. I believe Armour reps need to have their efficiency looked into. I think they should be more like 3 HP/ Cap unit. Also, efficiency of all active tanking modules need to be rebalanced as ASB's and AAR's are very much changing the shape of active tanking. It is clear that ASB's and AAR's are designed for "Burst Tanking" due to requiring to be fueled and having long reload timers. For traditional active tanking modules to compete with these modules they need to be more efficient than they currently are and have them refocused into "Endurance Tanking" modules (shield and armour). Also, your response to people asking for you to look at repair amount bonus to also effect incoming remote reps really disappointed me. You basically gave your opinion without backing that up with any numbers where everyone else has provided solid numbers which suggest that the bonus would not be "Totally OP". Is the entire community missing something that you know? Please elaborate on your statement to this question. Thanks.
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 269	Posted - 2013.01.22 14:21:00 - [4] - Quote Pinky..... Good points but you need to look at the numbers for armour vs shield boosting efficiency again. A dual MAR II fit pushes 70HP/s at 2HP/ Cap unit A Large SB II plus a SBA II pushes 81.6 HP/s at 2.267 HP/ Cap unit. The Shield booster is actually more efficient than the armour. The difference in HP/s is actually equalised from the armours better resistance profile. Standard armour repairers really need their efficiency increased to 3 HP/ cap unit. But I agree with your other statements about "fixing what we've already got".
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 271	Posted - 2013.01.22 15:39:00 - [5] - Quote To be honest. All rigs should have their penalty removed and the bonus you get from them linked to the level of the skill you train for it. I mean why not? The drawbacks on rigs on the whole tend to be stupid. Also there is so much imbalance between the rigs. Some rigs are far too good while others are just underwhelming
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 272	Posted - 2013.01.23 09:19:00 - [6] - Quote How about this: Change active tanking bonus to: 7.5% per level of armour repairer amount and 5% per level of remote armour repair amount received. Why? Well, this would give active tank bonused ships 17% more EHP/s from incoming remote reps than resist bonused ships. Resist bonused ships still hold the advantage of roughly 25% more EHP but it would at least make active tank bonused ships a viable choice for fleet warefare
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 272	Posted - 2013.01.23 17:45:00 - [7] - Quote Standard Shield Booster and Armour repairers need to be reworked into "Endurance Tanking". They need to have much better cap efficiency than they do right now. Armour repairers need to have their PG fittings reduced. ASB's and AAR's need to be reworked into true "Burst Tanking" modules. The ASB just needs its fitting stats ramped up to be closer to the fitting stats of a relative sized shield booster + Cap booster + Shield boost amp. ASB's also need their reload timers adjusted for size of module. 60 seconds is too long for a small / medium. Also the difference in boost amount between large and XL is rediculous. Large just isn't really a choice. The AAR needs to be fuelled by nanite repair paste or nanite repair paste "blocks" that have a very small volume. This way if you need to "Endurance tank" traditional modules would be your choice. If you need to "Burst Tank". Ancillary modules would be your choice.
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 274	Posted - 2013.02.06 15:04:00 - [8] - Quote Gypsio III wrote: Kahega Amielden wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: 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. So, I'm curious. Presumably when you release these modules you intend them to be balanced and competitive with other options, which is for most people going to be tech 2 stuff. Ancillary shield boosters, for example, are meant to be competitive with t2 shield extenders. How could you release tech 2 versions of these mods without breaking this balance? Easy, introduce T2 versions with the same stats as the current T1 versions, then nerf the current T1 versions. The net result is to increase the cost of fitting your ship. Of course, that's a total waste of time. T2 Ancillary rep/shield booster will probably just hold 1 or two more cycles of charges with same boosting stats and higher fitting reqs You heard it here first.
Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION 279	Posted - 2013.03.01 12:25:00 - [9] - Quote The best way to do it has been requested many many times which is to give the 7.5% rep bonus the ability to carry to remote repair received. CCP Fozzie believes this would overpower the active rep ships. The actual tanking figures can be agueed till the sun goes down though. If you do the math, a 7.5% bonus to repair received is only a little better than the 5% resist bonus effect to incoming reps (due to damage mitigation from higher resists). However when you start stacking multiple reps on top of each the tanking figures start to get a little wider to a lot wider. Perhaps the active rep bonus should be reduced to 5% per level and include a 5% remote repair received part to the bonus. The offset of the local reps being less powerful can easily be made up in boosting the repair amount of armour reppers a little so that a 25% repair amount bonus is = to todays 37.5%. However, after all this has been said, the reason this won't happen is because of what I believe CCP (Fozzie) thinks an active tank bonused ship should be fitted with moderate buffer plus a local rep to supplement incoming reps. This isn't a terrible way to make this work but it does still seem inferior to the resist bonus as these ships are still heavily cap dependent due to the fact armour reppers are not efficient enough.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.