| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam
Amarr Empire
42
   |
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:32:00 -
[331] - Quote
The new rigs are going to destroy pve armor fits. I know that part of the game is not important but still....... thats 115PG nerf to every armor rep mission running battleship with armor rigging lvl 5. And some fits use two reps....... |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
268
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:35:00 -
[332] - 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 -
[333] - 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" |
Weasel Leblanc
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:42:00 -
[334] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:The new rigs are going to destroy pve armor fits. I know that part of the game is not important but still....... thats 115PG nerf to every armor rep mission running battleship with armor rigging lvl 5. And some fits use two reps.......
And please use nano paste instead of cap boosters for Ancillary Armor Repairer.
Hey, some of us fly atrocious, execution-worthy fits that involve mixing repper rigs and resist rigs, and as such will not see our fittings invalidated.
...Yes, I'm guilty.
It's a good point about the PG nerf, though, and I doubt that a tiny percentage improvement to speed will make up for being stuck in my laughably bad fit being forced into smaller, weaker guns by the PG losses. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force
137
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:45:00 -
[335] - Quote
Gentleman, you have my attention.
The mass reduction in smaller plates will make them more viable for speed, combined with the skill bonus for both the larger armor plates and the smaller ones this will be quite interesting.
I like the fact that you aren't homogenizing the Ancillary armor repper with the shield repper. This maintains the distinction between both tanking types and gives them their own flare. Longer reps with more power behind them, like it! Watching that stack with armor rep bonuses on ships like the ferox will most definitely be interesting.
Thanks for the good work! |
Skippermonkey
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1761
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:46:00 -
[336] - Quote
OK, seeing as this update is all about 'parity' to a degree, the AAR being introduced because the shield tankers got the ASB, when can i expect to see an XL-shield extender to 'counter' the fact that the 1600mm plate exists
COME AT ME BRO
I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
578
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:47:00 -
[337] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote: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.
You don't understand my proposal. The poster before you didn't either.
My proposal isn't about "how much hitpoints should extenders/plates add?" but about "let's make a system where we can add the right amount of hitpoints to cruiser extenders/plates without upsetting battlecruiser/battleship balance". |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1766
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:51:00 -
[338] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:OK, seeing as this update is all about 'parity' to a degree, the AAR being introduced because the shield tankers got the ASB, when can i expect to see an XL-shield extender to 'counter' the fact that the 1600mm plate exists
It will come along with the ability to fit dual XLAARs on battlecruisers, just be patient!
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hastemal Nisk
Dragon Clan
Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:00:00 -
[339] - Quote
I still think much of the active armor tanking issue comes from being able to squeeze 2 xlarge boosters/booster and amplifier into a battlecruiser or even some cruiser hulls _and_ do a very good weapons fit, while there's no way that a sub battleship hull can in any way fit a large repper, while multiple medium reps push out needed damage mods. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:00:00 -
[340] - 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. |
|
|
Dzajic
109
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:02:00 -
[341] - Quote
I would take this chance to be boring and repetitive and remind everyone that proposed changed do very little if we don't look only at new gimmick module.
Standard armor reps remain exactly the same, rig bonuses remain exactly the same, one kind of crippling penalty is changed to another crippling penalty (should I be slow as snail or should I downgrade all my guns or swap tank rigs for grid rigs?). Only changes that even touch active armor tank are change of penalties and new overheat rig (That is in current version worse than nanobot accelerator), everything else about active armor tank remains the same subpar old self. |
John Nucleus
Black.Tie
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
Rick Rymes wrote:So in theory The AAR reps over twice that of a T1 Armor rep, the Incursus should only need one to achieve around the same as dual repping  Add on that this mod runs on cap charges, you don't necessarily need a cap booster, which frees a mid for a web  And because a AAR acts as two reps, you also technically have an extra low as well, which can be used to add more buffer/speed/damage  And because you are using one AAR instead of two reps you should in theory have more fitting for other stuff  But to top it off you no longer have a severe speed penalty on an already fast ship even with armor rigs  Did the toughest T1 frig just up its game???
That's how I see it too. The incursus just became too good. Great tank, gank, speed, and control. It has no weakness. Why would you want to fly any other brawler? |
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:13:00 -
[343] - Quote
Fozzie can you explain why you consider a hull bonus for recieved remote reps to be OP? I mean there is already a bonus to remote reps in the game it is called armor/shield resistance bonuses.
Hypothetical example: Imagine a 25 man gang (with 20 dps ships and 5 logi) vs an identical gang. Each dps ship does 500 dps while each logi reps about 300 armor points/s. The only difference between them is that one gang has a 37.5% bonus to recieved remote armor repairs while the other gang has a 25% bonus to armor resists.
Both gangs put out 10,000 DPS (before resists are taken into account) and rep 1500 dps. How does the different hull bonuses affect each gang? Well firstly the gang with resist bonuses reduces incoming damage by 25%, so the other sides DPS is reduced by 2500dps. Whereas the other gang get a boost to it's remote reps so their incoming repairs are increased by 562.5 dps.
So even with a hypothetical bonus to recieved reps the resistance bonused ships win out.
Under the fairly sensible assumption that a fleet brings more dps than logi, then the armour resistance bonus ends up being much more useful in fleets than this hypothetical bonus to recieved reps. Furthermore:
*Resistance bonused ships tend to have an extra low or mid for tanking, whereas active tanking ships tend to have a less focused slot layout, forcing one to either sacrifice tank or dps.
*Resistance bonused ships get better as the fleet scales up whereas active tankers get progressively worse even with this proposed active rep bonus.
*Resistance bonused ships are less vulnerable to volley damage on top of getting more remote reps
Even so, if the bonus turned out to be too strong you could always lessen the bonus to 3-5% for remote reps (and leave 7.5% bonus for active tanking). I just don't see why it's OP. |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:15:00 -
[344] - Quote
Since this is a thread about armor tanking:
Fozzie, are you also considering the imbalance that is caused by slave-set-implants? |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1767
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:17:00 -
[345] - Quote
John Nucleus wrote:
That's how I see it too. The incursus just became too good. Great tank, gank, speed, and control. It has no weakness. Why would you want to fly any other brawler?
It tanks less with new bonus+SAAR than with old bonus Dual SAR II, but only for 7 cycles while still using half as much cap.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:36:00 -
[346] - Quote
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... |
Griffin Omanid
Knights of the Zodiac
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:38:00 -
[347] - Quote
I assume these improvements is the first attempt to rebalanc active armor tanking.
And also the AAB will surely be first of all only a prototype modul like the ASB, won-¦t it?
Nice changes, and let-¦s see waht they bring. Also I now wish that ASB also get limited to once per ship, but that OT.
Proposal T2 BS Class Juggernaut |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
367
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:39:00 -
[348] - 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 |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:42:00 -
[349] - Quote
Sui'Djin wrote:Fozzie, are you also considering the imbalance that is caused by slave-set-implants?
I'm not Fozzie, but slave set is balanced by crystal set.
Capital shield boosters is an issue, but it's definitely offtopic. |
Gripen
1325
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:44:00 -
[350] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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? Stacked with itself since nothing else affects armor rep heat bonus atm.
What about red giant wormhole effect on overload bonuses? I think it's worth mention here because last time CCP guys didn't test how their changes work with wormhole effects made negative falloff exploit possible.
|
|
|
Unkind Omen
Stone circle
W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:46:00 -
[351] - Quote
CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times. The most ridiculous stuff about your Ancillary shield boosters and reps is that they require cargo hold on combat ships to fit active tank. On the other hand you may just want to increase cargo space of active tanking ships or introduce a very special "Battery cargo hold" to them. Having only 4-5 loads of Cap Booster 800 is not enough for long range roamings. Permatanking is not an issue here since you have already managed to limit useful amount of ASB and AAR on ships to one per ship. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
57
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:49:00 -
[352] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: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
I also vaguely remember attempts to make TC/TE/TD for missles.
Jeez, where is your imagination, guys? Who was the one to introduce capacitor with its amazing recharge curve? Find him, bring him back, pay him well. Or just sometime use brainstorms with us, players. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
57
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:53:00 -
[353] - Quote
Unkind Omen wrote:CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times.
No. Just remember once and for all - now you're cargohold-tanking. Not that realman-ish like hull tanking, but sure even more dumb. |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle
W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:56:00 -
[354] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:Unkind Omen wrote:CCP, please consider decreasing volume taken by Cap Boosters of all sizes by at least two times. No. Just remember once and for all - now you're cargohold-tanking. Not that realman-ish like hull tanking, but sure even more dumb.
That's not fair, I want some cargo space for loot!  Why should I get no loot if target is unable to protect itself? |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
35
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:59:00 -
[355] - Quote
Concerning math....
If I combine 3 Rigs that each give 100% bonus to the overheat bonus, what is going to happen?
Stacking:
1. 100%
2. 88%
3. 57%
(roughly)
which means the combined bonus is:
2 x 1,88 x 1,57 = 5,9
multiply the 10% rep amount by 5,9 => 59% bonus to rep amount. Nice.
multiply the 15% ROF bonus by 5,9 => 88,5% bonus to ROF. OmgwtfBBQop....wh000t?
Does that mean 8,7times as many cycles or am I somehow completely wrong?
Would mean: AAR loaded, overheated, 3 Rigs: like 2.25 x 1.59 x 8.7 = 31times the rep amount of a T1 repper (8.7times the cap usage plus the cap boosters).
or in other news:
push that button to instantly trade aall your cap, a molten repper and half a cargohold full of cap boosters a for a fully restored armor... |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle
W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:01:00 -
[356] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Concerning math....
If I combine 3 Rigs that each give 100% bonus to the overheat bonus, what is going to happen?
Stacking:
1. 100%
2. 88%
3. 57%
(roughly)
which means the combined bonus is:
2 x 1,88 x 1,57 = 5,9
I guess it is 100%+100%+88%+57% = 345% here.
|
Rick Rymes
Caldari Advanced Technology Corporation
39
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:03:00 -
[357] - Quote
Roime wrote:John Nucleus wrote:
That's how I see it too. The incursus just became too good. Great tank, gank, speed, and control. It has no weakness. Why would you want to fly any other brawler?
It tanks less with new bonus+SAAR than with old bonus Dual SAR II, but only for 7 cycles while still using half as much cap.
It adds more depth at least to a very one fit ship, A cap booster/AAR/t2 rep will still be awesome like the current dual rep Incursus but now a attacker has to worry if he is fit with a web or not.
The whole pg trade off seems a bit **** when all shield users gain is a bigger sig.
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  |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds
Drunk3n H00ligans
369
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:09:00 -
[358] - 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.
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:11:00 -
[359] - Quote
I can't believe I'm hearing whines about "large shield extenders fit much easier than 1600mm plates" and "shield boosters have much better burst tank than armor reps". Come on guys - shield and armor have always been different and you are forgetting plenty armor advantages like better standard resists, much lower cap consumption on armor reps and bigger plates available than shield extenders. can we have this discussion about the armor tank issues and why these changes are good and bad?
Having cooled down I looked at this again with fresh eyes :
Skillbook reducing plate mass with 25% : I think this will help a little on the skirmish area where shield tankers prevail due to being able to outrun and outmaneuver armor ships. But with velocity drawback still on half the armor rigs armor ships will only have a chance while active tanking and then they will likely be alpha'ed before getting tackle on a shield skirmisher... Interceptors will definately still be better off with a shield extender even if traditionally an armor ship!!
Skillbook enabling active reps to go nuts while overheating : Okay, I guess it's convenient. It has potential to compensate for the slow cycle times on reppers and most active rep ships I've used can spare a rig slot for this.
Rigs increasing powergrid? Go go autocannons on all active rep ships without a good racial gun bonus.
Base mass adjustment on plates with exceptions. Just make sure you have a logical pattern on those plates mass. Don't make 1600 and 400 stick out. People only use them because thats the biggest they can fit and not because of their mass penalty.
AAR gives armor tankers a few advantages:
More burst rep because active tanking today doesn't keep up with half the dps people bring. But why not boost active tanking in general because normal shield boosters doesn't work for pvp either unless you go officer mods and crystals with blue pills... Why not focus on the problem instead of making an alternative? It's fine to have mods with an alternate better burst tank, but the normal ones need a boost too, seriously.
Cap injected so basically save a cap booster, but armor tanking already use way less cap pr. hitpoint than shield boosting? There is a reson while armor tankers could run 2 armor reps easier than shield tankers could run a single shield booster and the shield booster needed an amp on top to get decent results when talking about effeciency. And honestly it seems like a cap booster is needed anyway for 2nd repper and most guns - It's not like most armor tankers have issues with enough medslots anyway... which means armor reppers will likely be able to keep their reps going even at 3/4 for normal cap while an ASB tanker just stops to exist because the latest nerf made single ASB useless in order to balance dual ASBs...
Don't think this is all it takes to fix armor tanking - It'll be like the hybrid buff that wasn't finished but just dropped in silence when you started focus on ships rather than looking into why people didn't use railguns and why people rarely used anything but antimatter with a few minor exceptions.
Pinky
PS. sorry for bittervet attitude, I mean it well.. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:21:00 -
[360] - 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". |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |