EVE Search - [Odyssey 1.1] Local Armor and Shield repair module changes

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Odyssey 1.1] Local Armor and Shield repair module changes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 753	Posted - 2013.08.05 09:40:00 - [1] - Quote Syzygium wrote: Instead of just "tweaking" some modules you should take the time and do a complete rebalance over the meta-range... I second that. My misplaced post from the HAC thread: Quote: Seems to a continuing issue when we foul players break the balancing work by shield buffering armer hulls and vice versa and in an effort to make active tanking more viable you have now created (with ASBs and AAR) several ships with tanks surpassing the average dps available in the various classes. So ..... I suggest a double whammy approach (while catering to my hatred for buffering in general and overbuffering in particular) by scrapping the repper boost from other thread and introducing a rule that says that a ships cannot gain more Hp from a buffer module than what it had prior to fitting it (essentially the same sort of calc that is done for resists) What ship other than an identical ship will be able to defeat the Incursus for instance? Only option is to bring neuts, an option that doesn't even exist where ASBs are involved. In short: Rethink the whole tanking concept from bottom up. Band-aids break.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 754	Posted - 2013.08.07 08:20:00 - [2] - Quote GeneralNukeEm wrote: Pelea Ming wrote: no abaddon is going to go self repping for over 6k hp/s. I'm only a skilless orbit-F1 nullsec supercap blobber and thus don't actually care about elite solo pvp active tanks, but you could at least try applying the scientific method (aka look in EFT) and seeing whether your claims are true. http://i.imgur.com/NloMzDx.jpg (current TQ stats) Overloaded it tanks ~over 9000~ DPS. At zero ISK .. where do you shop? When it comes to pew one must make one's assumptions based on what is realistic/feasible/cost effective .. and unless one is a Russian oligarch or an American banker with a PLEX selling network that fit is .. hmmmmmm.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 755	Posted - 2013.08.07 23:43:00 - [3] - Quote W0lf Crendraven wrote: ...Before this change a heavily active tanked ships relied on links and implants to work, while this was bad it also meant that very few people could pull it off, making it less "bad" then it sounds. Now everyone can easily reach high tanking numbers which is a heavy nerf to solo pvp, if everything can permatank you, and if you can permatank everything in a 1v1 you force the meta into blobs cause alone the dps isnt enough.... The addition of AAR's alone did that on the frig scale. AAR+Plate (oversized of course!) can generally not be broken using frig dps, and to think that they considered a 10%/lvl bonus on the Incursus at the start of the pass .. .. hahahahaha. On the flip-side (DOOM-sayer edition); Neuts will get a massive bump in use as active tanking becomes viable on paper making laser hulls extinct and stapling the dunce cap onto the pitiful NOS forever more. ASB missile spam, ASB auto-cannons, AAR blasters and AAR drones .. don't bother otherwise .. half the freshly rebalanced hulls made obsolete by inability to compete in the tank/dps race.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 756	Posted - 2013.08.08 13:12:00 - [4] - Quote Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: 1-an MMO is a gaming/social experience... You mean like real life where people treat each other like dirt so that everyone are more content glued to a smart-phone screen where they "interact" with people they don't really know and will probably never meet? Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: 2-selling point of Eve is not "twinks online" for that... You mean dumping a wad of cash at CCP's door, buying a 100M+ SP character with retinue and faction/officer fitting it does not count as twinking? Sure seems like it to me. Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: 3-choosing to play solo in Eve has a much different impact than in any other game... K2 got out of the game before T3's became omni-present/mandatory and he was of the old school with an interest in experimentation and challenging himself .. hardly the poster boy for current solo'ers now that KB stats and bragging rights are everything. Think long and hard, then name ten or even just five people are a dedicated solo'ers who scoff at links and other augments (includes bat-phone calls). Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: On topic, while armor reps are getting a bit better... 'Bit better' is an understatement of epic proportions, there are ships that cannot (ie. before this change) be broken with an equally sized ship no matter how/what you fly and fit .. that will be worse post change and push the already unfavoured hulls over the edge into obsolescence. Cap booster charges are indeed finite, but cargo holds are big enough to last well beyond the fight or several fights for that matter so they are for all intents and purposes infinite .. nanite paste was meant to address that but the sheer power while loaded more than makes up for the reduced efficiency when not.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 765	Posted - 2013.08.14 13:55:00 - [5] - Quote Wooden Spoon wrote: Anyway, I fly solo, armour tanked ships in combat all the time and can honestly say that armour tanking is in the best position it's been in since I can remember. The latest buff is excellent and very welcome. You can now fit a viable kiting armour setup, passive brick, or active tank and not be at the kind of disadvantage you would have been 6-12 months prior. Shield/Armour should have different pro's and con's, otherwise there's no choice and choice is good. The only thing I am waiting for is a limit on the number of ASBs, same as AAR. I don't understand why shield can have two fittted and armour only one. That actual solo or do you lug around a link alt like 99% of the other solo'ers? Shield/Armour could have the exact same performance and the choice would still be massive .. midslot options differ wildly from lowslot ditto. Armour tanking a kiter is never more than afterthought, used to negate the need for docking constantly to repair scratches, and as such is a completely pointless metric to determine whether adding even more repping power to modules is a good/bad idea. The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships as they will be unkillable by a similar sized ship, the T2 hulls will have 1k+ tanks with ample mids to fuel it for Goddess sake and the Incursus already requires specific counter fits to defeat (five mid Hooks, multi neut etc.). But you are right, armour is in a much better place now, doesn't say much considering the bottomless pit it was residing in for so long though
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 766	Posted - 2013.08.15 08:52:00 - [6] - Quote Kane Fenris wrote: Vaju Enki wrote: Karl Planck wrote: +1 though i do worry about two ships. The hawk : Will have an INSANE tank with faction reps/crystals/blue pill The Incursus: Already borderline OP with the reps, even without boosts. Nuets are a somewhat effective counter but a 15% bonus on top will make this little brick nearly unkillable to its t1 counterparts (unbonused) Some ships will be stupidly overpowered with this changes. The Incursus will destroy t1 frigate balance. i fear this might be true the ship is already a pretty tough nut Incursus is just the most pronounced of the lot due to dps/EHP ratios of the frigate class, but the issue exists all the way up the chain. They could keep the 7.5%/lvl, but ... reduce grid/cap to a point where you have 'total EP' (ie. full AAR cycle + base) equal to nearest comparable competitor x1.25 before capout (that is where grid reduction comes in, they should have to sacrifice a goodly chunk of dps to get more EHP by way of injecting). Problem is that Gallente boats have accumulated flaws through the years as neglected hulls tend to do and with Devs sorting each problem but treating them separately (not stepping back to see whole picture) ... then you throw in a tangential change such as this ... They now have: more cap than reasonable, more fittings than reasonable, more mobility than reasonable, they have .. all issues with the hulls pre-tierice, but by fixing each part the whole become OP. They NEED to have an easily exploitable or built-in weakness as neuting is 'meh' since all Gallente boats have enough mids for injecting .. no ship should require a gang to bring down with similar sized ships. ASB 'issue' can be solved by giving them the AAR treatment: cap use with some esoteric fuel source to load (there has to be something from PI that fits the bill!) or simply limiting them one per hull as with the AAR. Normal boosters can be addressed by going over the grids of the various ships so that a choice can be forced if the injector is wanted on top .. in that case, consider changing the boost penalty on relays so that damage/speed sacrifice option is made available as well.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 766	Posted - 2013.08.15 12:05:00 - [7] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: I have no problem with gallente being OP at close range brawling, minmatar being OP at edge-of-disruptor-range skirmishing, amarr being OP at mid-range fleet work and caldari being OP at slinging missiles from beyond the edge of lock range. Nor I. But if a person can only eek out a 50/50 with a 1k+ tank and 5-600 dps within scram/web range as is the case of the Diemos then that person has problems that the Devs cannot solve .. hell, I'd gladly take a 3-4:1 fight with a ship sporting those characteristics. There is more than enough room to down/side-tweak before you get to the 50/50 or even 2:1 mark in when it comes to the rep bonus blaster brawlers. They need a weakness beyond neut-spam (can be weaker cap for instance), pure and simple. Caveat: Reason why I do not want an OP active rep/blaster hull (besides the obvious) is that they will flood space and force everyone else to pack neuts just to compete .. and neuts affect my Amarr boats a lot more than the rep/blaster hulls as I do not have all the mids to mitigate their effect. Just so we are on the level
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 766	Posted - 2013.08.15 12:36:00 - [8] - Quote Mournful Conciousness wrote: Welll... first of all, on a pvp op I always ensure that there are neuts in the fleet.... Not everything is fleet and for every point of "weak" the active rep bonus may accrue in blobby weather it gains five points of "OP" as scale decreases. Otherwise a sensible thing, one can never have enough neuts in case of a logistics or Hail-Mary carrier appearing. As for the rest .. you really want to balance HACs against ships 3 (4 if you include T3) sizes up the ladder? If so then all the other hulls will need significant changes

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.