Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
104
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 21:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
I'm not sure if we're both playing the same video game, since you are going on about motorcycles and cars...
My game has spaceships...
And in it, those spaceships are already Shield biased, what with passive regen on everything.
Then you could say "Hey, I want faster Shield regen. So I'm going to go active tanked, burn Cap, and try to keep my shields going before my batteries run dry."
Only now, you can "active" tank passively. So triple ASB ships can be neuted all day long, and never suffer a loss in tank.
Or if you're feeling spunky about it, you could toss an ASB into your already passively tanked ship, and you have a fallback iWin button to refill your shields if they happen to get overwhelmed.
---
Now, you look at "passive" armor tanking, otherwise known as the waiting game. Who will run out of HP first?
So you say "Screw this, I want some sort of Armor regen. So I'm going to go active tanked, burn Cap, and try to keep my armor intact before my batteries run dry."
Only now... no wait, we don't get the passive shortcut. And we can't triple fit AAB, even if we were so inclined.
So if you're feeling spunky, and wanna toss an AAB in with several other run-of-the-mill reppers, you're still going to be burning through millions of ISK worth of Paste, and also expending tons of Cap Charges just like the ASB would. Only now you're sharing those Cap Charges to rep, guns, EW...
---
You are absolutely right however... Armor tanking =/= Shield tanking. And that's my point... |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 22:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ok you obviously don't understand the use of metaphors and really have no idea what you are talking about.
Triple ASB fit what?! the amount of cap charges that would require is just silly and you would NOT be able to tank 'all day'.
The tankiest thing I have engaged with ASB was dual ASB myrm. Took a while to kill as we were all in novice plex capable T1 frigs but guess what he died pretty easily just slowly because we couldn't bring the DPS to kill him quicker.
Neuting an ASB ship - now what can that do eh? Well it can shut down their weapons (for some reason people seem to forget that caldari have hybrids?!) kill off any hardners they may have fitted (which further gimps their fit), shut down any prop mod or point/scram.
Hmm this my friend is called tactics. If combat in eve is who can out tank/gank in a pure in your face brawl then I can see why you are coming to this conclusion. However it is pretty easy to shut down the actual combat capability of a multi ASB fit ship from BS down. Then all you have to do is chew through the shields and cap charges.....
ASB's are powerful yes. But then again so is a bomb. But guess what they are not all powerful.
You use the right tool for the right job adn it seems OP. Personally I haven't seen many multi ASB fits that down have major drawbacks in their combat capability. In the same way that the dual rep incursus is a total beast in some peoples eyes yet I love killing them cos they seriously gimp their fit to get max tank/gank (on paper at least)
So in regard to your OP.
NO devs are not shield biased they just don't want to make them the same. Get out there and try different tactics and get a different perspective on combat because tank/gank isn't the only factor.
And what is your point in saying armour =/= shield tanking?!? aren't you argueing by directly comparing their direct modules that operate in different ways? It's like arguing that walking diagonal across a road to walking directly across it depending on whether you need to move up or down the street?! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 22:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Cap carges v nanite paste
CCP has already stated it will be looking at the requirements to manufacture it in relation to the supply/demand as time goes on.
paste has been a very limited use item in game and these changes may well increase it use a fair bit thus increasing the demand and people will make it. If it becomes a prohibitive maufactureing process then CCP will address that.
Really don't see why this is an argument for or against AAR tbh. Most pvp'er regularly carry lots around with them anyways. The same and cap heavy fits and charges. except that countering the cost is the much smaller cargo requirements to carry paste.
6 and 2 3's as far as I'm concerned and not a valid argument either way. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
105
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 22:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
You're fun Taoist, I like you =)
Real quick... metaphors only work, if they work. The difference isn't bikes vs cars. Its the difference between cars with Oompa Loompa's crawling all over, constantly bashing dings and dents out of the body work. Or a car that just magically gets better as it drives down the road.
You start neuting the Oompa Loompa's, they fall off, and pretty soon your car looks... Minmatar. You neut the magic car, and nothing really happens. It still gets shiny just by floating there.
You can't tell me people don't passive shield tank L5s, running the entire mission completely bone dry of Cap, firing off missiles (sure, Caldari ships -can- use hybrids... but nobody does) and running enough Purgers and SPR to live forever.
If you pitted 2 evenly matched ships against each other, and one guy is running ASBs, the tactic would be "wait for him to run out of charges". Now if the other guy were running AAB (or any armor rep), the tactic would be "neuts". End of story.
If you pitted 2 evenly matched, "passive" tanked ships against each other, the shield ship will win almost every time. Why? Because his tank refills over time effortlessly. The armor ship only has a surplus of buffer before he's dead.
As for the paste prices, yes I think a change in production would make things "a little" more even. But this AAB is still pretty disappointing. It's like someone said "Hey, Shields got a cool toy. Can we get something even remotely as cool?" and CCP said "Sure, we'll give you precisely that. Something remotely as cool."
Oh, and... what streets? We're in space =D |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
250
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 23:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
I like oompa loompas don't you dare neut my oompa loompas you cruel evil man you!
I won't comment on lvl 5's or such as pretty much the only pve content I've been involved in in the last 18months is exploration or FW button spinning.
True the AAR is still a cap dependent machanic but I think you may be looking at it the wrong way.
ASB is a silly high tank for a silly short time. Dependent on multi fits and large cargo items to make any form of sustainable (really for only a slightly longer time than before really) This also pretty much gimps the fits for combat variance and completely puts it in the tank/spank mode.
AAR give the armour tanker the option of using a module to give a bigger burst tank than the regular reppers but at a cost of nanite etc. I feel the AAR is something that you will fit on your current armour fit ships and not need to fit specifically around them.
I personally think that armour tanking is fine the way it was/is (some of the module penalties are directed at the wrong attribute imo i.e speed rather than agility). But I'm glad some of the penalties are changing. The big thing is the metagame that changes. I remember when if you didn't fly ahac you were pretty much excluded from a lot of fleets.
I feel that tanking in general doesn't scale well and the bigger you go the more tankingis unbalanced. But this may just be me as my experiance in the larger ships is very limited.
I think the bigger things for active armour tanking is the penalty changes and the AAR is kind like a new toy like you said. I like the new toy, it fits with the lore and also give the active armour tanker another option. I don't think active armour tanking will become FOTM with this like ASB's did. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 01:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
The big problem here is, and always has been that ASBs are overpowered as ****. For as long as I can remember even the people defending shield tanking would take the time to add a "(not counting ASBs of course)" to their posts, because the damn things were broken and everyone knew it. Now we seem to have forgotten that for some reason, and even worse now that armor is getting an 'ancillary' mod (in name only) people are acting like the problem is shields as a whole, and not the specific case of ASBs needing a solid nerfbat.
IMO the big reason that people hate the ASB is that it should have been an armor mod right from the beginning. Shield tanking has always traded cap efficiency for more raw repping power, so giving them the asb was the equivalent of giving armor tankers an XLAR or armor-invuln. It threw one of the main drawbacks to using shields in the first place out the window and left armor tankers hanging.
As to the whole armor vs shield debate, the way I've always seen the balance in active tanking is like this: Armor gets better passive mods vs shields active ones, and more efficient reppers vs more HP repped per mod because armor tanking is supposed to be less effective but less cap reliant. Trading burst tank for tank sustainability. They also trade speed for more ewar (and I say this rather than damage for ewar because the slower a ship is the more it needs to be able to disrupt/pin down other ships) and then we have a problem, because the other 2 differences, damage projection and signature radius, don't really balance out well.
Even if you want pair off damage vs ewar, you're still left with sig radius vs speed/agility, and it's still not a very fair tradeoff (and if it were MWDs would be mostly useless rather than almost mandatory).
In passive tanking this imbalance is taken care of, because armor has better buffer, meaning it tanks more but deals moves less, and the appeal of a brickish playstyle is fairly obvious. But in active tanking it loses this advantage and doesn't really gain anything in return, which is why active armor tanking is viewed by so many as being shite. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3070
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 02:48:00 -
[37] - Quote
Amusingly, I was in favor of it being switched to nanite expressly because I knew it to be more expensive. It acts as a great boost to PI. :)
-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
|
Abannan
Justified Chaos
71
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 04:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
As a primarily armour tanker in eve, I have a message to op. If you want to fly a ship that has the ability to fit a tank that tanks like a ship with an xl asb, fit a damn xl asb to it and stop complaining. |
Umega
Solis Mensa
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 06:01:00 -
[39] - Quote
Every ship should be equal. Every module. It's absolutely reasonable to think that null should hit the same distance as barrage.. and both do the same dmg.. with perfectly equal and inline dps curves that mirror scorch.
Tracking disrupt never-miss missiles. It's not fair.. logic need not apply.
Why does the belli have an extra high over a cele.. they both T1 ewar cruisers. It's not fair the cele has an extra low. Ruppie is minus a gun over the other 3 equivilants.. it's not fair its forced to a utlity high. That's not balanced.
Why do some non-droneboats have significantly greater dronebays and/or bandwidth than their equivilant counter parts. Something should be done about this. It's not fair or balanced.
DCU gives armor 15%, but shield 12.5%.. making each rep point worth more. This also gives remote repping armor an advantage over shield from that module. That's not fair.. or balanced. Not too mention.. both armor classes have better structure, again.. making the legendary DCU favor the mostly armor-favorable ships. And that extra structure ehp could result in more rep pulses, more remote pulses as well. But we should ignore that.. or even better, make it fair and balanced.
Their shouldn't be black n white, only one color. I'll be damned if CCP makes me jump on the FOTM bandwagon, just because of what other's say. I'm a complete tool, and a drone to what other people say rather than my own experinces fueled by own ideals.. I need the forums to dictate and tell me what is right or wrong, and fit accordingly.
I too.. wish to be a mindless lemming. My EVE experince made easier by having every choice, be the only choice, and thus.. always the right choice. I can't handle being wrong. No one can make fun of me for fitting an armor tank over a shield tank.. cause they both heal at the same rate per second.. so it doesn't matter.
I'm going to happily dry-hump the air when CCP takes all the decision making out of my hands.. and simply makes everything the same as everything else.
In all seriousness.. god forbid CCP devs listen to some of you people. Here's a nugget of truth.. You know what kills MMOs? Not so much the company.. but the whining drones of lemming ezmoders that want the Golden Key of Excellence handed to them on a silver platter.
What's about to happen to armor tanking ships in general is MASSIVE.. there is a subtle breeze about to hit like an F5 tornado, and I'm sorry.. but I'm amazed how many of you are too stupid to realize it. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1997
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 09:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
Well that was a bad post.
After you've done with boring us, maybe you can give some facts that would support your "breeze"? What is changing?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Lashenadeeka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 17:29:00 -
[41] - Quote
This seems as good a place as any to post this:
http://i.imgur.com/RoF5Aj4.jpg |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
575
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 23:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
Didn't recognized the signature, it's Rembrant or Picasso? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam A Point In Space
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 00:38:00 -
[43] - Quote
If it bothers you that much train for Shield Tanking. The 2 systems are completely different from more than 1 perspective.
Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient. Base values for Armour are higher than they are for Shields Armour Tanking gets a Passive Omni-Resistance Module, Shield Tanking gets an Active Omni-Resistance Module
Finally Armour Tanking requires less SP.
Armour Tanking Skills Repair Systems (R1) Hull Upgrades (R2) Armour Resistance Phasing (R3) 4x [xyz] Armour Compensation (R2)
Total Ranks - 14 (3,584,000 Skill Points)
Shield Tanking Skills Shield Compensation (R2) Shield Management (R3) Shield Operation (R1) Shield Upgrades (R2) Tactical Shield Manipulation (R4) 4x [xyz] Shield Compensation (R2)
Total Skill Ranks - 20 (5,120,000 Skill Points) |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
268
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 01:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP totally hate armor they plan to remove it completely by the end of the year..op i hope u feel better. Leeloo Dallas Multipass - "Big bada boom"
http://i.imgur.com/1N37t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rbmgtGx.jpg Ninja over Black-ops. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
187
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 03:40:00 -
[45] - Quote
To mare wrote:sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? because they are damn good especially with the other changes made to rigs and fitting requirements, still dont see the problem of seeing nanite paste price going to the roof
I'm guessing probably because you're planning to sell nanite instead of using it. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:23:00 -
[46] - Quote
This is good stuff ! What is "AR A" ? |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
579
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:57:00 -
[47] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:If it bothers you that much train for Shield Tanking. The 2 systems are completely different from more than 1 perspective.
Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient. Base values for Armour are higher than they are for Shields Armour Tanking gets a Passive Omni-Resistance Module, Shield Tanking gets an Active Omni-Resistance Module
Finally Armour Tanking requires less SP.
Armour Tanking Skills Repair Systems (R1) Hull Upgrades (R2) Armour Resistance Phasing (R3) 4x [xyz] Armour Compensation (R2)
Total Ranks - 14 (3,584,000 Skill Points)
Shield Tanking Skills Shield Compensation (R2) Shield Management (R3) Shield Operation (R1) Shield Upgrades (R2) Tactical Shield Manipulation (R4) 4x [xyz] Shield Compensation (R2)
Total Skill Ranks - 20 (5,120,000 Skill Points)
Tip 1
Train new character from scratch for Tengu with strategic skill 4 subs 5 support missile 5 HAMs and HMs spec 4 Tanking skills 5 if you get the feeling to passive tank your Tengu
Tip 2
Train another new character from scratch for Proteus with strategic skill 4 subs 5 support gunnery 5 Medium rails&blasters 4, tanking skills 5
Both intended for DPS roles, forget drones in both cases or your Proteus plan will skyrocket.
What happened in your Evemon plan?
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 19:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:This is good stuff ! What is "AR A" ?
I assumed it was a dead space A type rep.
I was trying to do something similar to compare against ASB may post it if I am sure it is right. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:03:00 -
[49] - Quote
It's more of a comparison between a VTOL and a regular helicopter, they both get the job done, but the vtol.is better in pretty much every way (besides armor passive tank) all that needs to happen is to remove the capacitor requirements for the AAR, make both vulnerable or immune to neuting, and a hard cap on how many can be fir for both or removed.
Simply as that. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
244
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:58:00 -
[50] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:It's more of a comparison between a VTOL and a regular helicopter, they both get the job done, but the vtol.is better in pretty much every way (besides armor passive tank) all that needs to happen is to remove the capacitor requirements for the AAR, make both vulnerable or immune to neuting, and a hard cap on how many can be fir for both or removed.
Simply as that. We don't need more neutra immune ships.
And armor ships can still use their mid slots. People not considering this as something useful is more related to EWAR being weak on unbonused ships than armor being bad in itself. |
|
Clara Stewart
Stewart Collections
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:17:00 -
[51] - Quote
Armor and Shield both have there own benefits and disadvantages and they always will, players will always argue 1 is better than the other. The real inbalance in Eve is Hull tanking for reasons-
Only 1 resist module (damage control)
We have no extender or plates to fit as such just the Reinforced bulkheads this module only really works well on larger ships even then it has a stacking bonus and kills your ships speed.
The repair modules have painful fitting requirments, slow cycle/rep amounts and they eat capacitor.
No Rigs
So you lot stop complaining and lets look at fixing Hull tanking please.
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
181
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:Call me crazy, but I'm kinda getting the impression that CCP Devs really hate Armor.
You're crazy.
Quote:Like... really... hate... armor...
Really... crazy.
Quote:First off, whose idea was it to burn Paste? A rather rare and valuable Farmville Planetary Interaction commodity.
People asked for it. There were at least three threads in Features & Ideas Discussion before the devs announced the change.
Quote:Then add in the continued Cap draw. Justified as "we don't want armor tanking to be like shields"
And tack on "limited to one" just for extra oomph. Justified as "we saw how powerful that made ASBs, and rather than go fix ASB, we're going to pre-nerf AABs"
Active armor tanking is already highly cap efficient, so removing cap would be kinda redundant. However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam A Point In Space
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:20:00 -
[53] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Tip 1
pointless drivel post #1 Tip 2
pointless drivel post #2
whut ???
n.b. and yes, i paraphrased your post. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:24:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Tip 1
pointless drivel post #1 Tip 2
pointless drivel post #2
whut ??? n.b. and yes, i paraphrased your post.
You won GD, you made my evening. Thx *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is.
That AAR needs to be coupled with a regular AR to offer the burst you need. 2 low slots +1mid for mandatory cap injector vs1 mid, it's huge trade off for little/none advantage (double lol rep) and completely nullified when you get to start talking about double ABS fits. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3076
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:29:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is. That AAR needs to be coupled with a regular AR to offer the burst you need. 2 low slots +1mid for mandatory cap injector vs1 mid, it's huge trade off for little/none advantage (double lol rep) and completely nullified when you get to start talking about double ABS fits.
Dual rep + Cap Booster doesn't tend to require 1-4 fitting mods as dual ASB does. Dual ASB also plays merry hell with your ewar and tackle. I think it's far too early to be doomsaying regarding armor vs shield.
-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
|
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 01:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Drake Doe wrote:It's more of a comparison between a VTOL and a regular helicopter, they both get the job done, but the vtol.is better in pretty much every way (besides armor passive tank) all that needs to happen is to remove the capacitor requirements for the AAR, make both vulnerable or immune to neuting, and a hard cap on how many can be fir for both or removed.
Simply as that. We don't need more neutra immune ships. And armor ships can still use their mid slots. People not considering this as something useful is more related to EWAR being weak on unbonused ships than armor being bad in itself. So we don't need more ewar immune ships but ASBs shouldn't be made cap vulnerable? |
Ctzn Snips
Justified Chaos
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 02:57:00 -
[58] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:[quote=Caitlyn Tufy]However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is. Dual ASB also plays merry hell with your ewar and tackle. I think it's far too early to be doomsaying regarding armor vs shield. -Liang
Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3081
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 03:08:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ctzn Snips wrote:Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots.
So.... dual rep incursus (SAAR, SAR) vs Merlin (MASB). Who wins?
-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
|
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
260
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 03:48:00 -
[60] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots. So.... dual rep incursus (SAAR, SAR) vs Merlin (MASB). Who wins? -Liang
Merlin as he just walks away if he can't mitigate the incursus' damage through range control.
hmm....I might actually start flying a dual rep incursus with a web rather than scram hmmm... That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |