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)
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 490	Posted - 2013.01.22 01:16:00 - [1] - Quote Incursus will be impossible to kill .. utterly impossible .. if it changes one repairer and installs the new rig. Each cycle will pull back 315 points of armour, hilariously more than half the base armour of the hull .. for as long as the repper has charges it will in essence behave as if it had a dedicated Inquisitor supporting it (almost anyway) ..... and it still has room for a second vanilla repper as well as injector. Is that really the intention? As for plates .. severely disappointed to be honest, lower mass penalty is good but had hoped you'd tweak the fittings upwards a tad .. they are stupidly easy to fit compared to active rep, so easy in fact that oversizing is the norm and has been for a long time, it is not uncommon to see frigs with 400's, cruisers with 1600's and BC with 2-3x1600. Keep in mind that active rep on a 'pro' level requires cap support (injector) for most fights other than ganks and as insurance against neuting. So now that we know what the idea/concept is, lets discuss a replacement for the Gallente repair bonus
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 490	Posted - 2013.01.22 18:31:00 - [2] - Quote The other armour tanker .. the venerable Punisher with its 'OMGOPtrollolol' resist bonus would be made completely redundant with AAR, rigs and Incursus 10% bonus .. 7.5% rep/lvl is roughly equal to 5% resist/lvl for the purposes of active tanking, which is the topic du jour, so with the reduced bonus they ought to be equal, right? WRONG! Incursus has that godly third midslot (3 on armour frig is huge) that can make it all but immune to cap warfare whereas the Punisher gets a utility high for the, by comparison, grossly ineffective nos. No amount of range advantage (which is non-existent on frig level without range bonuses) can compete with an unbreakable tank. So here is the thing: Incursus gets to keep its 10%/lvl but has a mid-slot moved to high rack, AAR and rigs are implemented as suggested and Punisher moves the high-slot to the midrack .. blasters don't really need the web after they had the tracking bumped. Short: Burst tanking will break the balance unless repair bonuses are either nerfed into the ground or replaced with something else .. case in point: ASB .. those damn things find their way, even after being nerfed, onto everything with three mids or more, it is an abomination! Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: [This could be something to dig. And also because sooner than latter you'll need 12 slots for active tanking + some dmg mods So add a damage bonus to armour repairers, explain it with: "Excess energy from nano.manufacturering within repairer is shunted to weapons systems
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 490	Posted - 2013.01.22 19:43:00 - [3] - Quote How much SiSi work/testing are you willing to do Fozzie? Don't think the AAR will work due to hull rep bonuses, exact same thing as we see with regards to shields/ASB so no reason to believe it will play out differently .. neuting will only get you so far when all the rep bonus ships have spare mids for injectors. But I like the idea of the heating rig. Dangerously close to the "busting by way of heat" brainfart I have been wafting around the past couple of years, albeit my suggestion was to tweak the heat performance of the reppers themselves. Could/Would you throw the overheating rig in original form and an enhanced form onto SiSi (ie. just the rigs, toss the AAR) .. I have a suspicion they will take us almost all the way home with possible tweaks to cycle times needed on MAR/LAR only for a homerun.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 491	Posted - 2013.01.23 12:19:00 - [4] - Quote Commander Ted wrote: Nanite paste instead of cap boosters for the AAR please? I mean on a douple rep myrm having two modules eating cap boosters is bad enough, but for a triple rep its crazy. Escecially if I end up using two different sized boosters for each module that could be terrible to manage. Also nanite paste makes more sense for this job. Wow ... caters to both common sense and the RP/Lore aspect, plus it solves all cargo issues PLUS it will act as a boost to entry level PI (nanite paste takes a lot of low end crap if I recall). What's not to like?
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 491	Posted - 2013.01.23 12:32:00 - [5] - Quote Dzajic wrote: On tech1 and on non pimped T2 ships up to certain size, cargohold full of nanite paste will cost several times more than ship + fittings. Are you really certain you'd like that? No one is saying that it should consume cans full of the stuff, SAAR could perhaps load 100 and use up 25 per cycle, MAAR loads +50% and LAAR another +50%, at 20k per unit that is 2M per reload for frigs, 3M for cruisers/BCs and 4.5M for BS which is well within reason considering that it is used on a PvP god-tank. There are loads of numbers to tweak, if it goes south (which is will, because this is Eve ), then CCP can manipulate market value by changing the relevant PI numbers
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 491	Posted - 2013.01.23 12:41:00 - [6] - Quote Mag's wrote: Veshta Yoshida wrote: Dzajic wrote: On tech1 and on non pimped T2 ships up to certain size, cargohold full of nanite paste will cost several times more than ship + fittings. Are you really certain you'd like that? No one is saying that it should consume cans full of the stuff, SAAR could perhaps load 100 and use up 25 per cycle, MAAR loads +50% and LAAR another +50%, at 20k per unit that is 2M per reload for frigs, 3M for cruisers/BCs and 4.5M for BS which is well within reason considering that it is used on a PvP god-tank. There are loads of numbers to tweak, if it goes south (which is will, because this is Eve ), then CCP can manipulate market value by changing the relevant PI numbers Not only that, but all ships could have a nanite paste hold. This would limit amounts you're able to carry. I like inherent evil-ness of that plan .. have the AAR fuel cut into generic after-math module repair .. more choices/sacrifices \o/
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 492	Posted - 2013.01.23 19:01:00 - [7] - Quote 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. Good call on all counts .. although the consumption rates are a bit low considering how much pew'ing power the AAR represents, could easily double or triple it with no objections from the handful of people in Eve who still armour tank in PvP. Also, remember to get us info on the revised heating rig as soon feasible.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 492	Posted - 2013.01.23 20:18:00 - [8] - Quote Dread Operative wrote: So a fully loaded MAAR will cost twice as much to run as a LASB. Lame. "Easy" enough to sort out by tweaking PI formula's when/if needed. If the new mod takes off in the same way the broken ASB did then paste prices will skyrocket and an adjustment necessary. Just the thought that I'll be able to keep up with the pesky omni-present shield abominations in both speed and tank makes me all dizzy with anticipation .. read: I'd happily pay loads more than suggested for the power I'll have!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 492	Posted - 2013.01.23 21:17:00 - [9] - Quote Takeshi Yamato wrote: The say a picture is worth a thousand words... here is a graphical comparison of the AAR and the ASB http://i.imgur.com/REYYlHK.jpg (updated with correct total rep amount for the AAR) Please correct any mistakes I have made. Please note that I gave the AAR 3x rigs to help it out a little bit. I didn't include the Overcharge rig because the exact mechanics have not been clarified. Why the resist mods, should be enough to just use the suitcase as both ships have resist bonus? Why two tanking mods for shield .. you'll need to (at least) add a T2 MAR to Prophecy to even out the effect of the amplifier. Speaking of which .. where is my fittings friendly super boost to my armour tanking mods .. I want a nanite amplifier!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 493	Posted - 2013.01.24 11:29:00 - [10] - Quote Apostrof Ahashion wrote: ... This makes no sense at all, and all that burst tanking talk is bs.... In straight up brawls where incoming dps is nice and even throughout .... perhaps. But when I go up again high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright. Vanilla reps, particularly MAR/LAR could use some love though. Lowered grid requirement and an inch off cycle times, they should be better at prolonged repping with the AAR dumping most of its reps in those first critical 30-60s. If those numbers tell me anything then it is that the modifier on AAR should be increased and reload cycle extended not that the idea should be discarded.

Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 493	Posted - 2013.01.24 11:53:00 - [11] - Quote Sinzor Aumer wrote: Veshta Yoshida wrote: But when I go up against high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright. If you want burst tank - use shields. If you want armor - no burst then. Isnt it fair enough? Why you want everything homogenized?! Yes, let me stick an ASB onto my slicer, Coercer, Retribution, etc. and try to pew If what you say was to be what CCP went for then armour ships would never fit active reps (dps/EHP ratio has been skewed over the years) and would only participate in blob-fests while solo/small-gang would be limited to a handful of ships at best with the rest of the shield ships being relegated to permanent mothballs/PvE .. talk about homogenization. If you had ever tried pewing an ASB abusing ship using an armour boat as they currently stand you too would jump at the chance to get something that will at least make it an interesting fight.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 495	Posted - 2013.01.24 14:12:00 - [12] - Quote Apostrof Ahashion wrote: ... Its a terribly hard thing to balance, especially considering that there is already a perfect, simple and well balanced overheating in the game for your burst tanking needs until you drive your blaster boat in their face. And even if they somehow manage to strike a perfect balance in timeframe when MARII starts outrepping AMAR it will come at a cost of a big reload time and small number of charges making it nothing more than "oh crap" button. There is a good chance that is why Fozzie started the thread, to get brain-stormed to make sure he didn't miss anything. Took us only a couple of pages to show that the heating rig might be a bit much for instance .. balancing core stuff like tanking is never easy, the RR discussion prior to T1 versions and the ongoing ASB debate/hatred attest to that Burst tanking (ASB spit notwithstanding) is all about the oh-** button, albeit slightly longer. The reason why it is sorely needed is evidenced by the prevalence of plates, more often than not supersized even if that takes fitting mods .. we need the ability to have access to that EHP without being forced to plate up, it will add a ton of variety and extra thought on the fits. Apostrof Ahashion wrote:** ...Overheating is enough, and specialized pvp repair modules will just create a huge balance issue while changing nothing in the way of actual gameplay or introducing new and fun mechanics. Just killing ASB will balance active tanking and tweaking mwd sig bloom should be the first step balancing buffer tanking. Been flogging the "burst through heat" horse for a few years now and when I read this proposal I realised that my original concept had a significant flaw: If heat was used as the sole limiter, you would get the desired effect at the expense of zero sacrifice made and T3 would need a new hull bonus .. by using a module specifically meant to provide the heated rep (AAR) you force a decision process that would otherwise be absent (ie. none of my current fits would need to change at all). Killing ASB's does nothing for active tanking as that completely ignores the reason we need bursting in the first place: Population. Solo is rarer today than yesterday and average gang sizes will continue to increase as long as there are people to fill the slots .. higher population -> bigger gangs -> more dps -> buffering ad nauseum. All that said, the AAR should be a highly specialized module that can act as a plate replacement in small gang scenarios but fall behind as sizes go up. @Fozzie: Any plans, pending or otherwise, on revising the heating interface some more? Maybe the ability to at least increase rack buttons in size?
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 498	Posted - 2013.01.25 12:33:00 - [13] - Quote Sinzor Aumer wrote: And OMG, it's 3 mil worth of paste in your 100 mil battleship - are you bloody serious? For PvP, 3M is peanuts. How many serious pew'ers have less than half a billion in implants, use only named/T2 modules, fly only T1 ships and don't carry enough faction ammo for multiple fights? Three million is less than the price of a single BS gun, it is less than 2 Cruiser guns or 4 frigate guns .. and for that 3M investment you get the equivalent of a personal logistics aiming half his reppers on you ... Still think it too much? I'd gladly have it doubled or even tripled!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 499	Posted - 2013.01.25 13:04:00 - [14] - Quote So additional requirements if AAR is to be implemented are: - Reduction of armour repairer grid requirements across the board (out of whack to begin with and now rigs will ... ) - Some way to close the gap, at least partially, between active shield and armour ditto without making the use of said modules OP (as initial ASB). - Some way to alleviate the cap use of the AAR without actually making it capless like the 'heinous one'. * Knock off 20-25% the grid/cpu requirements of repairers. * Knock a similar amount off the cycle times and/or add to repaired amount (still wont be 'shield level' but armour has more native resist), more and I fear for my cap and that armour ends up being the new FoTM with eWar on everything as the result . * Reduce small NOS fitting requirements to that of neuts and double cap drained of all NOS (keeping the "must have less than enemy" mechanic of course). * Examine what happens with lower fittings for injectors. PS: I've tried fighting ASB users and don't want to be "that guy" only with an armour option .. module should be a choice not a requirement.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 501	Posted - 2013.01.25 17:33:00 - [15] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: New update.... Poor guy, all he wanted was to give the ravenous horde a new toy and now he gets to revise the whole shebang Ships 'meant' to active tank already have the grid for it. The reductions are I assume to first counter the pending rig penalties and secondly to help ease the 'mandatory for active' injector onto some more fits (instead of using small with 400 navy booster). Much easier, faster to tweak the repairers than to redo all the hulls and guns to make them match, so good move, whether it is enough remains to be seen but my Amarr ships have never had serious grid issues and the few fits that do take the dps hit to accommodate it so all is well .. Aim should be to find a fitting req. that allows one to shoehorn a plate (non-oversized)+AAR onto a ship with max size guns I think, any more lenient and it gets boring and cookie flavoured .. there has to be some had choices before undocking!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 503	Posted - 2013.01.25 23:50:00 - [16] - Quote Active armour tanking also requires you to get injectors, fortify your cap, increase your grid etc. .. but it is true that the basic skills to use the repairers and get rudimentary resist mods require less time to train than shield ditto you just won't be able to tank so much as a gnat without all the secondary support skills.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 505	Posted - 2013.01.26 23:45:00 - [17] - Quote Roime wrote: [quote=Takeshi Yamato]...No links or drugs there but something seems to be borked in my pyfa, the numbers are off. Was too good to be true You said it yourself, its a cruiser fight! Those 4-500 tanked is still 100% of the enemy dps absorbed into heat damage and cap drain while he is hopefully unable to say the same. Fights where the winner isn't on fire with everything red-lined when the loser pops are ganks!
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 509	Posted - 2013.01.28 11:45:00 - [18] - Quote More EHP, either through resists or stat bumps, are unnecessary. The Dps/EHP ratio for frigates-cruisers is right where it should be, if anything the EHP on 400 plates should be reduced as it is the most commonly used oversizing option for frigs/destroyers. That said, the 800 plate is rarely used as most cruisers and all BC+ use 1600's but buffing one and not the others makes little sense. Were plates to have an additional benefit then let it synergize with AAR through a slight cap reduction on active mods (plate used as temporary capacitor) or increased rep amount (plate mass used for constructing additional nano-bots). The convoluted way would be to give the various plates (Steel, Tungsten etc.) separate and unique bonuses while equalizing the EHP benefit across the board .. would boost market value for almost all the plates not currently used (ie. all but Tungsten) and could pose some interesting decisions in the fitting screen. Plates should in no way, shape or form be buffed "on their own" beyond what has already been proposed (lowered mass) as it will exasperate the 'buffer everything' problem making this whole exercise to improve active tanking a waste of energy.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 513	Posted - 2013.01.30 01:10:00 - [19] - Quote Mariticide wrote: ..What we gain in cargohold we lose in the ISK equation... We can win that ISK equation if we can convince the powers that be to either make the AAR impervious to heat damage when burning nanites (makes sense) or tweak the PI processes to cut costs somewhat .. personally partial to the former option as it does not make heating something one does no matter what as in-space repairs will be cheap as hell. At any rate. Armour tanking has always been 'hard mode', we elite few are perfectly happy with the prospect of paying for the privilege of getting to pwn face.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 515	Posted - 2013.01.31 08:09:00 - [20] - Quote Naomi Anthar wrote: ... For me it looks like it's gallente lovefest. To somehow make them happy with thier armor rep bonus.. I am of Amarr and don't fly anything but Amarr/Khanid and I too feel the love, so it is not just the designer-turd flying population it is meant for but rather the shock armour population. Resist bonus will lose out to the straight rep bonus in the short term, but has benefits beyond and Amarr hulls generally have better capacitors and slightly more base armour. Don't underestimate the effect of lowered fittings on MAR/LAR, will still require sacrifices but only the one child and not the whole family .. having 'proper' gear, even if downsized, in all slots instead of having to top up with fitting rigs/modules is huge! Only thing I would like to see is fitting for buffer modules being ramped up, especially now that their penalties are being reduced, buffering will still be the best option in most situations as neuting is omni-present (AAR cap dependent) and armour ships generally need their cap to bite peoples faces off .... a +25-50% to plate fitting requirements would suffice, 1600's still more than viable on BCs but not on cruisers (without sacrifice). It is one thing to make active viable, but making people abandon what is more often than not the better option is a whole other can.

Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 516	Posted - 2013.02.02 12:04:00 - [21] - Quote Is it possible to code it so that a booster won't fire without a certain amount cap, without actually expensing said cap?
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 516	Posted - 2013.02.02 15:12:00 - [22] - Quote Takeshi Yamato wrote: Veshta Yoshida wrote: Is it possible to code it so that a booster won't fire without a certain amount cap, without actually expensing said cap? That weird mechanics like the one you're describing are being considered in a desperate attempt to fix the problem just goes to show what a horrible idea cap warfare immune ASBs are.... Want to hear the other brain-fart, the really out-of-box one? Extenders as is. Boosters as is. ASB to be remodelled to act like the old-school RPG mana-shield, all damage absorbed, every 2-4 (meta level?) points of damage burns one cap. - Ultimate burst tanking, severely limited by first the fitting of the mod itself and second by injectors and their slower 'speed', plus of course cargo requirement. - Only good for short engagements (like active armour) as everything as you know turns off when cap dry, micro nightmare to click everything on next charge going in. - Major rewiring results in base shields being halved so once dry it collapses even faster (hardeners/DCU gone as well). - Only really worthwhile Caldari/Minmatar due to their mainly capless weapons (ASB Abaddon will be risky as hell). So you see, I just gave the the one I thought was most palatable
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 516	Posted - 2013.02.02 19:33:00 - [23] - Quote Marcel Devereux wrote: More math... If you don't consider the proposed skill worthwhile then why not just refrain from buying and training it? You are right, that it doesn't do much for straight line speed but mass is more than a speed hindrance. Close fights are often won/lost because of a few seconds of indecision or outright mistake of one of the pilots involved .. a few extra m/s and a slightly tighter turning radius may not look awesome on paper but it can mean the world in those close fights. But it is all besides the point, plate buffering is being buffed which is just plain wrong even if active tanks are being made a lot more viable. Sacrifices for plating are quite simply not severe enough to make up for the benefits they bestow on their users (easy fittings (comparatively), capless etc.) .. just thank your lucky stars/rabbit's foot/whatever that I am not the one calling the shots
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 517	Posted - 2013.02.04 15:22:00 - [24] - Quote Moonaura wrote: Will repair paste be cheaper to produce? Not looking forward to the pricing when all this hits the fan. How can you (and others) still be worried about price? BS numbers: Lets say paste triples in price after the AAR is released, the LAAR will consume 64 units before going dry with a total price of <4M (20k x 3 x 64) which is less than a single gun, equal to roughly 2000 units of faction ammo .. total value of the ship will probably be somewhere in the 250-300M bracket Now consider that the AAR allows you to win fights that would otherwise be lost .. even with insurance, the loss of mods, spare ammo and hull far exceeds any deficit incurred by the cost of the paste. Hell, if it allows you to win just 10% (random %, probably far lower) more than usual you are already making loads of money on the investment. In short: Think of the cost of paste as an opt-in to the insurance, ABS brakes to the airbag and seatbelt .. it may not prevent calamity but significantly reduces the risk and in the even of "fail" minimizes the economic damage. Even shorter: As long as CCP (read: Fozzie) keeps an eye on market price and is prepared to order tweaks to PI formulas if the need arises it is literally a non-issue.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 518	Posted - 2013.02.04 16:24:00 - [25] - Quote Moonaura wrote: Your argument sounds great when applied to Battleships... Goes for all ships, cruisers load will cost <2M and carry maybe 2 reloads .. they already carry similar value in faction/T2 ammo and their fittings make up the bulk of initial cost .. Again, if the cost of the 2-3 paste loads lets you win just one or two fights more out of 10-20 you are already in the black. Cost efficiency of investing in paste goes through the roof when you hit frigate/dessie level due to hulls being practically free compared to fits and AAR output being almost equal to the dps levels involved. It makes little difference which hull size you focus on, the investment in paste will be more than covered if said investment lets you have just one mail rather than becoming one. PS: Note that I went with the 'outside' event of paste tripling in price, personally doubt it will more than double (over time, not counting initial speculation buys) if that so numbers will likely be even more in favour of my argument.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 519	Posted - 2013.02.05 13:04:00 - [26] - Quote Meditril wrote: ...Since the small reppers have a repair cycle which is half of the medium and large ones I think they should be able to hold twice the amount of paste, which means for 16 cycles. Alternatively the small repairers should have a rep factor which is twice that high as it currently is, so that they are intended to be used in burst mode. SAAR is the least of the problems as everything is pretty well balanced on the frig/dessie level to begin with, ie. the dps/ehp ratios are spot on. Thirty seconds is in the upper range of the average frig/dessie fight duration so again, spot on. Any longer and you are going from buffing armour tanking to buffing a specific hull exclusively, namely the Incursus (Punisher does not have cap or slots to get cap for much longer than 30s). Same applies if you double the rep amount and although that would include the Punisher it would still be be a big FU to all other frigs/dessies. Can be argued that MAAR/LAAR should have room for more than 8 cycles as dps/ehp ratio tends to be skewed due to more people being involved, but increasing rep amount modifier should be done/considered very carefully as you don't want to create an environment where extreme neuting is mandatory for anything to get done (as Amarr only, it is bad enough as is) .. the HP/cap with extra rep amount risks awarding a massive advantage to ships with cap to spare. Speaking of the Punisher/Incursus .. I'd really like a third mid on my Punisher for an injector or in the very least a hefty cap bump. Falls far behind in the cap race at the mere mention of a small neut
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.07 23:37:00 - [27] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: How's that?... Direct comparison is the wrong way because of the module availability in the two racks used, slot counts in said racks and base resistances ... compare them yes, but not directly cap/cap, hp/hp, etc. Fon Revedhort wrote: I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same AAR does just that, gives you the peak to the regular repairers efficiency, but it is a good point. There should be a wider range to choose from .. as a FW monkey I'd like to call dibs and have the navy reppers be insane in either department
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.08 11:53:00 - [28] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: Most people never used to max afterburner either. They changed that now though.... They did what now? You are not by any chance referring to the oversized AB phenomenon where the saved cap is noticeable .. because I'll be damned if I (as a declared anti-oversizer) see any reason whatsoever to train that pointless skill higher than 3-4. CCP did not do that, we players did in our never ending pursuit of min-max bliss. As for the rest: That is the beauty of active armour, it is not a simpletons chosen method of tanking as it requires considerations and choices far beyond that of active shield .. absolute nightmare if one get hit with latency spikes, but with everything running smoothly one (read: I) get a lot more satisfaction out of juggling cap/armour/hull/transversal than just cap which is all active shield amounts to if you ask me and the main reason why I too consider the ASB flawed .. then again, could just be my Amarr hulls with neut bonuses talking
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.08 15:01:00 - [29] - Quote If you are so hung up on efficiency with no regard to base cap/regen of the various hulls, then why not try to come up with solutions to your perceived problem? You say that a booster + SBA exceeds what dual reps can do. So add a 20% extra 'shield mod' cap use to SBA's .. solves immediate booster eff. issue AND the supposed problem of invulns suddenly being god modules. You say triple rigs are needed to compete. So tweak the rig benefits slightly and/or convince Fozzie to put some extra hours into the heating rig originally planned as part of the active armour push (original proposal would break most if not all active armour scenarios so was rightfully pulled).
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.09 08:01:00 - [30] - Quote How exactly do you want to balance it? From the description with the "lack of TE" it sounds like you want to use BC vs AF as a base-line There will still and should always be some matchups that are utterly impossible to pull off .. that was one of the reason I think why CCP were so heavy handed with the Hurricane, it simply had no real weakness and would happily munch anything in its path. Duration of the uber-repper is 8x cycle currently; - Frigates are well covered with fights being fast and furious and rarely going beyond the one minute mark if that .. cap management/warfare will be alpha/omega (Rifter to have a renaissance?). Would in this sentence like to reiterate my desire for more Punisher cap - Cruiser are well-off with the 70-80s duration, could be a tad longer though, say ten cycles. - Battlecruisers are the odd ducks out, mostly due to their place in the hierarchy. Near BS damage levels with only cruiser+ tanks makes the eight cycles entirely too low .. if I were the one to make the call I'd give them an extra role bonus to be able to fit two ASB/AAR (would require an ASB nerf to disallow multiple on other hulls). NOTE: Similar role bonus could be attached to the T3 active tanking sub-system. - BS are so rarely used in the scenarios the AAR is designed for (solo/small-G) that it is very hard for me to comment on. AAR use will be a niche thing on BS level I should think .. used primarily for travel to make it back to gates (more speed + equivalent of buffer tank EHP) .. BS are fleet animals which is fine by me. The main grief points towards tweaking ASB's (and TE's) and not buffing AAR's. The fact that an armour boat would even consider using that horrible thing is proof enough if you ask me .. creating an environment where shield hulls start seeing benefits in using AAR's is not even (I should hope) on the table.

Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.09 16:16:00 - [31] - Quote Oversizing is fine as long as it represents a conscious and preferably hard choice .. cramming a 400 plate onto frigs for instance costs a lot in terms of fittings/performance .. that is the problem with ASB's and shield mods in general, too damn lax fittings with inconsequential downsides, extenders should blow the sig way out for instance and not by the measly handful of points presently. Forcing arbitrary restrictions is un-Eveian so should never be considered, the problem would have been non-existent had there been some kind of cap consumption involved as is planned or the AAR. Sure you could fit the M.ASB on your frig no problem, but you'd cap out after two cycles! .
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.10 22:00:00 - [32] - Quote YuuKnow wrote: Because NRP is so much smaller in volume than cap charges won't Armor reps have the advantage of being able to carry significantly more NRP than the analogous ASBs fits? yk Longer cycles, cap requirement, harsher fittings and most will need injector - remember those from before ASB's made active shield tanks laugh at cap? Personally think the requirement of first cap charges, now paste, is purely so that CCP can dictate how much and for how long by using the reload mechanic .. when it comes to the AAR, paste (price/size) is so distant as to be barely noticeable with regards to balancing.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.11 22:56:00 - [33] - Quote HazeInADaze wrote: I think the AAR would be more interesting as an OH function.... Since the heating rig is probably never going to happen, as the boost of multiple of the things would break everything even with stacking, perhaps we should start advocating a doubling or tripling of the AAR repair amount when heated. Balance it by being just barely able to run the full eight cycles without redlining at thermo 5 so that the bursty aspect is enhanced for a very limited time .. rig can then make a comeback as a mimic of the T3 hull bonus instead of the initially proposed rep super charger .. such a heating rig has the potential to shake up far more than just a single module
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 521	Posted - 2013.02.12 09:06:00 - [34] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: ...Why would the game need yet another option to tank 10 ships of your class by a mere press of a button? That's a vicous circle - bring more ships cause can't otherwise kill anything and then ask for even better tank. The entire point of any armament (spaceships included) is to deal damage, kill and probably die as well. If one is looking for an ultimate tanking option, there's a bomb-shelter. Ten ships by doubling/tripling heat bonus .. the ships you fight must all forget to activate guns or something. Heating a repper gives you -15% cycle and +10% amount, I propose it be +20-30% amount ... think you might have read it wrong. Also, it will almost solely cater to plate/AAR fits as heat will be unmanageable with a second repper, doubly so if it is also heated for a cycle or so. At any rate, 2.25x T1 performance is hardly game-breaking levels to begin with (barely 'bursty'), it will be like a deadspace repper with better efficiency, and won't really do much for any hull other than the Incursus as it is has room for the all-important injector .. the AAR is a "shut up already!" statement from CCP to the Gallente tank bonus whines, needed for sure but there is no reason not to design it so that other can benefit as well. But, we are moving forward which is a huge thing in Eve and it will be good to see Brutes in space again if nothing else, will be annoying to see Incursus' at every corner though .. it was being set up to replace the Rifter as the 'go to' frigate (read: iWin) and the AAR cements it. Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters).
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 521	Posted - 2013.02.12 13:51:00 - [35] - Quote TehCloud wrote: Quote: Guess the only way for someone like me (Amarr only) to get same treatment is to hope that CCP hires an Amarr aficionado if such even exist after 2 years of Winmatar and the dawning of Gallantean superiority (we need a lightly derogatory term for that by the way, too many letters). You know that the amarr resist bonus is still better for active tanking than a rep amount bonus? Is it? Numbers seem to indicate that 7.5% rep bonus active tanks more than resist ditto, not by much mind you but it doesn't get better per se until after a while (read: far longer than one can reasonably expect a fight to last). Where do you propose Amarr hulls are to get the cap from to avail of that 'advantage'? .. the real power of it is that it covers buffering/RR as well as active but with no mids to spare for cap a lot of Amarr hulls are stuck in FoTY buffer ville.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 524	Posted - 2013.02.21 11:27:00 - [36] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: AARs were originally designed to use Cap Boosters. The community asked for nanite paste because of its size.... Won't speak for anyone else but size was far from my mind when I supported the idea .. just makes a ton more sense for modules that sport the description "This module uses nano-assemblers to repair damage done to the armor of the ship", to use nanite paste rather than generic batteries when going super-charged .. plus it helped set it apart from the module which must not be named. Cost is irrelevant. Most combat operations already have you lugging around a small fortune in ammo/drones so paste cost is just another drop in the ocean .. well paid if it prevents a death which is more than can be said for ammo/drones (not to same degree at least). Either way, CCP can always manipulate paste price if need be but doubt if it will ever be necessary. Buffers will still rule BC/BS fits so the biggest 'on-paper' consumers are out of the picture and the handful of cruisers that can/will benefit from (ab)using the AAR will not be enough to push price much in any direction (SAAR paste use is as most things frigate, damn near perfect in cost/benefit so 'meh') Also, if you dual-rep you need boosters as well but it is a benefit to not have to lug around multiple shapes and sizes. Shopping runs in general as they pertain to AAR vs "the unnamed one" will be much easier if done outside of the major hubs.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 529	Posted - 2013.02.28 09:07:00 - [37] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Garviel Tarrant wrote: Your logic is flawed, you can easily heat a repper for 8 cycles without burning it out and you don't have to reload it when it runs out. A AAR outperforms a t2 rep for 19 cycles, then the t2 overtakes. No, my logic isn't flawed, that was exactly the point I was making, that you can run a T2 Repper on overheat, and repair with nanite paste as needed, and it vastly out performs the AAR. And this was with just T2 reppers without stepping up to deadspace. In my experience the time it takes to repair the heat damage from 8 cycles takes longer than the 60s reload of the AAR .. and that is with the repairer nested in the middle of the rack, maxed skills etc. Could just be that those kind of waiting periodds always seem longer, but pretty sure it exceeds the 60s . But if you are in a fight that lasts long enough to warrant repairing that amount of heat damage in the first place, you are better off with the AAR + its reload time than having a T2 AR that is borderline and thus cannot be heated anymore unless you want to offline it. Even has the option of heating the AAR itself for ++ performance for those extra intensive fights (read: short and brutal). That is what the AAR is/does .. it gives you heated performance without the heat.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 531	Posted - 2013.03.03 13:44:00 - [38] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: And the AAR you can't keep running anywhere near as long. Since it's hard capped effecivly at 8 cycles, While even with minimal skills it's quite possible to push 16 or more cycles overheated out of the T2 before having to stop heat. EFT's heat calculations are usually fairly accurate, so going by them with repairer situated in the middle of the rack with two mods on either side: T2 can be heated for a total of 40 cycles before off-lining, repairing 352 hp/cycle, 2816 hp in 8 cycles. MAAR can be heated for a total of 50 cycles (T1 stats > T2 stats) before off-lining, repairing 594 hp/cycle, 4752 hp in 8 cycles. Beauty of using the mediums is that the numbers all line up with 8 almost being a constant, as those eight cycles also equate to the AAR reload time (61s, close enough). By the time the T2 burns out after its 40 cycles (5 minutes) it will have repped 14080 hp at a steady pace throughout while the MAAR at the same point in time will have repped for "only" 24 cycles for a total of 14256 hp in three bursts .. leaving it 26 more heated cycles (not counting the cooling happening when its reloading mind you!). Bottom line: Initial test results from SiSi were bang on when they came back saying that the AAR is like designed to work in conjunction with a plate as the buffer carries it through the reload cycles. Seems to me that YtterbiumGÖÑFozzie did their homework pretty damn well. PS: Who cares how much paste is spent one way or another. It is just ammo for the tank rather than guns .. don't hear people complaining about the cost of pressing F1-F8 even though that is just as high if not higher (PvP = faction ammo).
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 531	Posted - 2013.03.03 20:51:00 - [39] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: ...Because you stopped at the start of the reload cycle for the AAR with your numbers there meaning for the next 60 seconds there are no further reps from the MAAR. Meaning you also have a comparable minute to repair the MAR II. Or continue with unheated MAR II repping which is still pretty good.... The output of the heated MAAR is such that the heated T2 won't catch up to it until it has approx. 15s left on its first reload, after which it pulls ahead quite rapidly .. so of that minute you speak of the first 3/4 is spent lagging behind .. end result is that the T2 either needs a companion rep or a plate that is larger than that needed for the MAAR. T2 never achieves the equivalent of a full reload cycle's worth of an advantage before it burns out so unless you deliberately choose to do the tally at the end of the reload cycles, the MAAR will come out ahead in all comparisons. Sure it could be more, but it does the job of offering almost double rep amount compared to existing options in a comparable price range so the burst component is covered .. would hate to have one being even better as the cap drain would have to be higher as well and active reps are already crippling on my Amarr hulls.

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.