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) |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:20:00 -
[601] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:A lot of the problems with active armor tanking could be solved by increasing the efficiency of the medium and large armor reps, they are horribly inefficient compared to small reps and ALL shield boosters. That's mostly because you are comparing regular sized armor reps to oversized shield boosters/ASBs. The difference isn't THAT large when comparing regular size modules. No I'm not, that is small to small, medium to medium to, large to large/x-large. And no Ancillary were included in this Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
600
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:21:00 -
[602] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:A lot of the problems with active armor tanking could be solved by increasing the efficiency of the medium and large armor reps, they are horribly inefficient compared to small reps and ALL shield boosters. That's mostly because you are comparing regular sized armor reps to oversized shield boosters/ASBs. The difference isn't THAT large when comparing regular size modules. No I'm not, that is small to small, medium to medium to, large to large/x-large. And no Ancillary were included in this
You should be comparing Shield Booster + Boost Amp with 2x armor reps.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:23:00 -
[603] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:A lot of the problems with active armor tanking could be solved by increasing the efficiency of the medium and large armor reps, they are horribly inefficient compared to small reps and ALL shield boosters. That's mostly because you are comparing regular sized armor reps to oversized shield boosters/ASBs. The difference isn't THAT large when comparing regular size modules. No I'm not, that is small to small, medium to medium to, large to large/x-large. And no Ancillary were included in this You should be comparing Shield Booster + Boost Amp with 2x armor reps. The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers (Repair Systems V)
Small Armor Repairer II 40GJ 80HP 6s = .4444HP/GJ/s Medium Armor Repairer II 160GJ 320 HP 12s = .2222HP/GJ/s Large Armor Repairer II 400GJ 800HP 15s = .1777HP/GJ/s
This is a steep change from small to medium, and not much of a change from medium to large. This should be looked at before introducing new modules into the Armor Tanking system.
A quick look at shield boosters HP/GJ/second Small Shield Booster 20GJ 30HP 2s = .75HP/GJ/s Medium Shield Booster 60GJ 90HP 3s = .5HP/GJ/s Large Shield Booster 160GJ 240HP 4s = .375HP/GJ/s X-Large Shield Booster 400GJ 600HP 5s = .3HP/GJ/s This is a nice step from small to X-large Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:24:00 -
[604] - Quote
The entire concept of "burst" tanking is flawed. Its supposed to repair much more than other module in short time span and then as time progresses fall far, far behind. This does not happen in eve because small scale combat is over fast. And in its current state Ancillary Shield Boosters are even better in pve since you can fit two of them, so the are not "burst" tank modules, just much much better tank modules.
The same thing applies to the proposed Ancillary Armor Boosters, all things considered they are just plain better. And use gimmicky mechanics that makes no sense and will force us to use 3rd party software or spreadsheets to fill our cargoholds with just the right amount of ammo and different cap batteries. Just boosting repairers would do the same thing without the pain of cargohold management.
Nerf ASB to the ground and active tanking is already balanced. And please drop the AAR idea. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
81
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:27:00 -
[605] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Nikuno wrote:1.For a single rep ship you'd ALWAYS fit the AAR to have the burst as an option 2.For a dual rep ship you'd ALWAYS fit the AAR as the first rep to have the burst as an option 3.For a triple rep ship you'd ALWAYS fit the AAR as the first rep to have the burst as an option I'd go with all normal reps if I (1) do need better sustained tank; (2) don't need burst tank ever; and (3) need the cargo bay or want to avoid futzing with cap boosters. If I want a sustained triple rep setup, then I still have to fit three normal reps (two for sustained dual rep tanking, etc.). Normal reps will give better sustained tank, and this thing will allow for a very large burst tank, that comes with some costs (assuming they make it work the way it needs to work for it to make any sense). A new burst mod does not make sustained tank fits obsolete, except to the extent that they sucked already and still need to be fixed. This is why they should have started by balancing normal modules / rep bonus / resist bonus first, rather than just throwing a half-baked module into the mix and then having to deal with all the problems it creates, while still needing to balance all the old stuff as well because it's still needed, and still broken.
Then I don't think you've understood the AAR.
Take a dual rep setup. You can tank 2 reps worth of hp of whatever size rep for as long as you have cap (determined by the cap boosters you hold)
Take the dual AAR and normal rep setup. You can tank 1.75 reps worth of hp of whatever size rep for as long as you have cap (determined by the cap boosters you hold). Additionally you can tank an extra 1.5 reps worth of tank each time you activate the burst , and this can be done for 7 cycles, 9 with navy charges.
So, you lose 0.25 reps/cycle but gain 9x1.5 = 13.5reps over a 9 cycle period. You then lose 60 seconds of rep whilst you
1. fall back to a 1 rep if reload disables the rep
For a small rep with a cycle time 4.5s you lose (60 / 4.5)=13.3 cycles versus a gain of 13.5 cycles for a net gain of 0.2 cycles with an AAR in place of a standard rep
For a medium this is (60 / 9)=6.7 lost versus a gain of 13.5 cycles for a net gain of 6.8 cycles
For a large this is (60 / 11.25)=5.3 cycles lost versus a gain of 13.5 cycles for a net gain of 8.2 cycles.
; or
2. fall back to 1.75 reps whilst it reloads if it remains active whilst reloading.
For a small rep with a fast cycle time of 4.5s this means you lose (60 (reload time) / 4.5 (cycle time))*.25 = 3,3 reps equivalent, but you gain 13.5 reps equivalent for a net gain of 10.2 reps over the whole use-and-reload cycle.
For a medium this is (60 / 9)*.25=1.7 lost vs 13.5 gain for net gain of 11.8 cycles
For a large this is (60 / 11.25)*.25=1.3 lost versus 13.5 gain for net gain of 12.2 cycles
Under no circumstance at all does the dual rep ever match the AAR/standard rep for how much repair can be done throughout the whole use and reload cycle. Combine this with the cargo holds being increased to specifically cater for the possible introduction of this mod and you're left with the state I described where this will ALWAYS be the first rep you fit, there is never any reason to do otherwise. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:34:00 -
[606] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:You should be comparing Shield Booster + Boost Amp with 2x armor reps.
The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers (Repair Systems V) Small Armor Repairer II 40GJ 80HP 6s = .4444HP/GJ/s Medium Armor Repairer II 160GJ 320 HP 12s = .2222HP/GJ/s Large Armor Repairer II 400GJ 800HP 15s = .1777HP/GJ/s This is a steep change from small to medium, and not much of a change from medium to large. This should be looked at before introducing new modules into the Armor Tanking system. A quick look at shield boosters HP/GJ/second Small Shield Booster 20GJ 30HP 2s = .75HP/GJ/s Medium Shield Booster 60GJ 90HP 3s = .5HP/GJ/s Large Shield Booster 160GJ 240HP 4s = .375HP/GJ/s X-Large Shield Booster 400GJ 600HP 5s = .3HP/GJ/s This is a nice step from small to X-large
Using these numbers, 2 armor reps will not increase the efficency weather you use 2 or 8 they will only boost at thr rate presented above, where as a shield booster with boost amplifier will generate the following: Small Shield Booster II + Shield Boost Amplifier II 20GJ 40.8HP 2s = 1.02HP/GJ/s Medium Shield Booster II + Shield Boost Amplifier II 60GJ 122.4HP 3s = .68HP/GJ/s Large Shield Booster II + Shield Boost Amplifier II 160GJ 326.4HP 4s = .51HP/GJ/s X-Large Shield Booster II + Shield Boost Amplifier II 400GJ 816HP 5s = .408HP/GJ/s
Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
601
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:36:00 -
[607] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers
I don't really know how CCP comes up with the fitting requirements, but the large armor rep really does have excessively high fitting requirements.
Ironically I think it was done to prevent cruisers from using them. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:38:00 -
[608] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers I don't really know how CCP comes up with the fitting requirements, but the large armor rep really does have excessively high fitting requirements. Ironically I think it was done to prevent cruisers from using them.
The HP Repaired / GJ Usage / Time in Seconds ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers Nothing to do with the fittings, this is the Efficency of the repairers Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
601
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:41:00 -
[609] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers I don't really know how CCP comes up with the fitting requirements, but the large armor rep really does have excessively high fitting requirements. Ironically I think it was done to prevent cruisers from using them. The HP Repaired / GJ Usage / Time in Seconds ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers Nothing to do with the fittings, this is the Efficency of the repairers
T2 armor reps have an efficiency of 2 armor/cap.
T2 shield booster plus T2 amp has an efficiency of 2.26 shield/cap.
As I said, not a major difference. I don't know what kind of math you're using if armor reps come out as "horribly inefficient" for you. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:43:00 -
[610] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:The HP/GJ/S ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers I don't really know how CCP comes up with the fitting requirements, but the large armor rep really does have excessively high fitting requirements. Ironically I think it was done to prevent cruisers from using them. The HP Repaired / GJ Usage / Time in Seconds ratio needs to be looked at for armor repairers Nothing to do with the fittings, this is the Efficency of the repairers T2 armor reps have an efficiency of 2 armor/cap. T2 shield booster plus T2 amp has an efficiency of 2.26 shield/cap. As I said, not a major difference. I don't know what kind of math you're using if armor reps come out as "horribly inefficient" for you. Time, you must not forget time!!! shield boosters cycle much faster than armor reps, so the gap is much farther apart. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
|
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:46:00 -
[611] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Time, you must not forget time!!! shield boosters cycle much faster than armor reps, so the gap is much farther apart.
Cap efficiency per second is a nonsensical concept.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1807
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:47:00 -
[612] - Quote
MAAR+MAR II Brutix is also starting to look appealing when you include Standard Exile, it's new improved mobility (lower mass and no rig speed penalty) and the sixth low slot.
It needs fitting implants, and you don't get eternal awesome permatank, but a very nice tank for quite a long time along with full hard tackle.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:51:00 -
[613] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Time, you must not forget time!!! shield boosters cycle much faster than armor reps, so the gap is much farther apart. Cap efficiency per second is a nonsensical concept. Oh, then why is the Cap free ASB so popular? Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
bigboy boss
State War Academy Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:20:00 -
[614] - Quote
The ASB and the Armor "ASB" are both terrible module ideas.
I wish they would just remove both from the game and just balance the old modules. |
Omnathious Deninard
Extrinsic Operations
457
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:25:00 -
[615] - Quote
bigboy boss wrote:The ASB and the Armor "ASB" are both terrible module ideas.
I wish they would just remove both from the game and just balance the old modules. The armor one has some potential IMO but not as it is right now, like others have said before, it should use nanite repair paste to supercharge the repairer.
The ASB could be fixed if it was a standard booster that could load cap boosters to negate the cap, everything else should be the same as a standard booster of the same size. Ideas For Drone Improvement Updated 11/30/12Catastrophic Uprising is Recruiting |
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
260
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:31:00 -
[616] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Time, you must not forget time!!! shield boosters cycle much faster than armor reps, so the gap is much farther apart. Cap efficiency per second is a nonsensical concept. Oh, then why is the Cap free ASB so popular?
Because mid slots are at a premium on shield tank fits, so not having to fit a cap booster is a big advantage. Now that they have such long reload time, they are quite vulnerable, and as with all things in eve - reliant on the fight you pick (or not pick) that you end up using them in.
I'm certainly not convinced they are that useful as they were before the nerf anymore. We are recruiting talented pilots for innovative small gang PvP
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=175061 |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:16:00 -
[617] - Quote
ASB and AAB both need to go back to the drawing board for how they operate.
The initial idea is sound. One of the biggest problems for armor tanking is that you cannot allow a permanant active tank to handle more DPS than can be dished out, or else no one ever dies. Burst tanking solves that by allowing an active fit that is useful in PvE, with the flexability of a competitive PvP tank as long as your boost charges last. When I first saw the ASB I had high hopes that it was a step in the right direction to getting carebears into ships that could both accomplish mission running and not be forced to hide or dock because a hostile PC showed up.
I think the better solution is to make them both repair boosters instead of repair modules in their own right. Inactive, they could provide a small boost bonus, such as 10% more sheild boost for the ASB and perhaps something like 5% of the repair amount of an Armor repper as passive regen every 10 seconds.
Once Activated, they would provide additional benefits, such as reducing the cap use of the active modules to zero, and a large boost to repair amount for the shield rep, and a massive reduction in cycle time for armor reps.
Splitting them off into seperate modules like that allows for better balancing of their benefits. The cycle times of the Ancilliary modules could be tailored to the needs of the burst tanking concept without destroying the balance of the active tank modules themselves. Limiting them to one per ship would enforce the burst part of burst tanking without leaving the ship itself without a tank at all in reload. Allowing them to be overheated seperatly from the active repair module allows for more flexability in how you tank and in the effects that can be built into the modules---imagine if overheating the Ancillary module would slow the cycle down, extending the burst period at the risk of burning the boost out completly, but leaving the Active modules operating normally. |
Morgan North
The Wild Bunch Electus Matari
102
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:36:00 -
[618] - Quote
I say that the Armour Repairers, especially the ancilary, need to use Nanite repair paste.
Please, there's not even any reason to go and use cap boosters that then also need a cargo increase, giving us loads of space to carry around in ad-hoc cargo ships.
Just use repair paste, use the same number of repair paste as the number of cap boosters that an AAR can take, and everything else makes it so that reloading the AAR mid fight is a bad idea anyway.
You know you want to! |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:40:00 -
[619] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Takeshi Yamato wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Time, you must not forget time!!! shield boosters cycle much faster than armor reps, so the gap is much farther apart. Cap efficiency per second is a nonsensical concept. Oh, then why is the Cap free ASB so popular? Because mid slots are at a premium on shield tank fits, so not having to fit a cap booster is a big advantage. Now that they have such long reload time, they are quite vulnerable, and as with all things in eve - reliant on the fight you pick (or not pick) that you end up using them in. I'm certainly not convinced they are that useful as they were before the nerf anymore. It still takes Large Shield Booster 60-70 seconds to catch up to Large Ancillary Shield Booster (if you let both run all the time, witch you shouldnt, so realistically even more) and by that time the fight could be over. Also Large Shield Boosters drain a lot of cap and will eat BC capacitor by themselves in 2 min, and even fitting Capacitor Batteries wont make them stable or able to run for longer periods of time without burning the ships capacitor, and also they can be completely shut down by neut.
Also the fitting and skill requirements are just silly, Shield Operation II, 100cpu and 150pg, much less than just Large Shield Booster not counting Capacitor Booster.
And dont forget, you can fit two of them. They are op. Needed to make active shield tanking viable in pvp, but with current stats just too powerful. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
272
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:45:00 -
[620] - 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. |
|
Bouh Revetoile
Barricade.
224
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:46:00 -
[621] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:Cap efficiency per second is a nonsensical concept.
QFT
Unit is HP/(GJ.s) ; GJ.s don't make any sense. That does not represent any real thing.
Armor repair is more cap efficient than shield boost but shield boost have a better burst than armor repair ; mixing those two caracteristics to artifiacialy show one type of tank better than the other is rather dishonnest infact, because that rely on the weight you give to burst versus cap efficiency, which can only be arbitrary.
These change are awesome, and some people should really think about them all. Buffer armor will still be brick, but less than before. And hopefuly, lighter armor buffer will now have a reason to live. But above all, this AAR will be amazing : alowing for effective mix tank (AAR+buffer) or usable active tank (with AAR+AR) or the old pure active tank, and without killing your speed, and more importantly, freeing you a low slots (and maybe a med slot : less armor reper mean less cap needed ; and as the AAR will run for a little more than one minute, you don't need more than that of cap life before being cap stable again).
These changes will open countless possibilities for many ships, and allow to use signature AND tank at the same time !
That is so huge it will be hard to tell where that will lead us before some times, though most concerns should be fixed with that : active armor can use less slot ; active armor will be 17% faster ; buffer will be 25% more agile ; and smaller plates may become useful ! |
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:58:00 -
[622] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
These change are awesome, and some people should really think about them all. Buffer armor will still be brick, but less than before. And hopefuly, lighter armor buffer will now have a reason to live. But above all, this AAR will be amazing : alowing for effective mix tank (AAR+buffer) or usable active tank (with AAR+AR) or the old pure active tank, and without killing your speed, and more importantly, freeing you a low slots (and maybe a med slot : less armor reper mean less cap needed ; and as the AAR will run for a little more than one minute, you don't need more than that of cap life before being cap stable again).
Buffer armor will still be the same brick, since the buff we get for training new skill does nothing significant. ~20m/s on BC with 1600 plate.
AAR wont change anything, you will just swap one repairer for it. Not a single fit will change. And it 100% wont free you any slots, dont really understand what led you to that conclusion. It is just a straight, flat armor repair boost that will cost us incredibly boring cargohold management. And buffer&active tank combo is not really that good idea, dont get your hopes up. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
330
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:24:00 -
[623] - Quote
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
AAR wont change anything, you will just swap one repairer for it. Not a single fit will change. And it 100% wont free you any slots, dont really understand what led you to that conclusion. It is just a straight, flat armor repair boost that will cost us incredibly boring cargohold management. And buffer&active tank combo is not really that good idea, dont get your hopes up.
Dual rep fits can now fit one repper and have the same effectiveness for 2 minutes while decreasing cap use, freeing a lowslot, and freeing up a ton of grid. This is a very significant fitting change IMO. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
2823
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:38:00 -
[624] - Quote
chatgris wrote:Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
AAR wont change anything, you will just swap one repairer for it. Not a single fit will change. And it 100% wont free you any slots, dont really understand what led you to that conclusion. It is just a straight, flat armor repair boost that will cost us incredibly boring cargohold management. And buffer&active tank combo is not really that good idea, dont get your hopes up.
Dual rep fits can now fit one repper and have the same effectiveness for 2 minutes while decreasing cap use, freeing a lowslot, and freeing up a ton of grid. This is a very significant fitting change IMO.
A single AAR is not equivalent to a dual rep fit.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Apostrof Ahashion
Viziam Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:41:00 -
[625] - Quote
chatgris wrote:Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
AAR wont change anything, you will just swap one repairer for it. Not a single fit will change. And it 100% wont free you any slots, dont really understand what led you to that conclusion. It is just a straight, flat armor repair boost that will cost us incredibly boring cargohold management. And buffer&active tank combo is not really that good idea, dont get your hopes up.
Dual rep fits can now fit one repper and have the same effectiveness for 2 minutes while decreasing cap use, freeing a lowslot, and freeing up a ton of grid. This is a very significant fitting change IMO.
If you ignore the fact that armor reps suck and that you actually need that module to give you more rep. Duo rep fits will still want that second rep and so will triple rep fits. And since both Gallente and Amarr use cap to fire you will still need battery in the mids.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Out of Sight.
951
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:44:00 -
[626] - Quote
One should also never miss the fact how this AAR comes in one version only. The idea of having the same level of investement applied to aVindicator and a plain Megathrone is very dubious. Hardly anyone fits this way at actual TQ PvP, it's usually considered reasonable to invest some isk in better gear if your ship isn't free. And now we are forced to use free mods even at hulls which cost isk, like faction battleships. Meh. 14 |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
3600
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:51:00 -
[627] - Quote
A few updates:
We're switching the AAR to use nanite repair paste instead of cap boosters. What we're looking at now is for them to hold 8 reps worth of paste, with the smalls eating 1 per cycle, the mediums eating 5 and the larges eating 10.
I'm also investigating our options for reducing the base powergrid need for medium and large armor reps a bit.
We're aiming to have all of this on Sisi before the weekend. Please note that just because things are on Sisi doesn't mean they can no longer change. It just means we want to give people a chance to try it out in the game client. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|
Perihelion Olenard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:57:00 -
[628] - Quote
Why are people so concerned about fitting problems with the new rigs? It's not nearly as bad as people think. Tech 2 armor repairers use more PG than the tech 1 and replacing one of the tech 2 repairers with the ancillary armor repairer will lower the PG used, anyway.
In a previous dual or triple repairer setup you can drop two regular armor repairers, then put in the ancillary armor repairer and the reactive armor hardener. Suddenly you free up a lot of PG, use less capacitor, and tank better than before. It can get even better when tanking less damage types with that RAH.
Why are people complaining about needing more cargo space? Even if CCP doesn't increase cargo holds a little, the large ancillary armor repairer will use only navy cap booster 150s. The extra repairing the AAR gives for the capacitor used is certainly worth it.
I can't really comment on the overloading rig since it depends greatly on the layout of the active tank whether it will be better over the aux nano pump. That is, until the penalties take over.
One thing I don't like: Not reducing the base mass of a couple plates just because they're used more often is unnecessarily inconsistent to me. That said, it's nice that we get a skill that reduces the penalty of all plates. In addition to improving maneuverability, it will also increase the MWD speed of plated ships a little. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
83
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:59:00 -
[629] - 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. thanks for the update.
Is the AAR still going to be limited to one per ship? Does that make any sense, given that you can have as many ASBs as you want fitted, and armor tanking needs more rappers anyway? Surely it'd make more sense to limit the ASB to one per ship, and remove the one-per-ship restriction from the AAR, considering that shield boosters can always be fitted to improve the amount.
Also, I didn't see the line in your update where you said you're rolling the mass reductions into the plates baseline and removing another unnecessary burdensome skill for armor tankers. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
492
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 19:01:00 -
[630] - 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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |