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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation 317	Posted - 2013.08.02 18:22:00 - [241] - Quote Not sure about this... I'm sure the shield boosters needed it, but armour reps across the board? Pantheon Triage RR needs a buff? And have you ever tried to kill a punisher or incursus in another t1 frigate without kiting? What about those crazy tanking dual rep Amarr AFs? Seems like some stuff will get imbalanced and broken, but we'll see after testing. Cheers.
Cearain Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 1043	Posted - 2013.08.02 18:31:00 - [242] - Quote Sigras wrote: Cearain wrote: Tsubutai wrote: Leskit wrote: CCP Fozzie, with the buffs to self reps and reduction in warfare link bonuses (specifically the rep speed and cap usage), what is the net change? e.g. a player running a single rep with the fleet booster for rep speed before odyssey 1.1, and after. I fail horribly at that type of stacking math. so it's a boon so un-boosted self reppers, but what's the net change to boosted reppers? Thanks In the simplest possible case (assuming no resist modules on the tanking ship to avoid complications arising from stacking penalties), current tanking links increase the strength of an active tank by a factor of 2.36. After the change, a full suite of tanking links will only increase local tank strength by a factor of 1.82 (if boosted by a maxed-out command ship) or 1.77 (if boosted by a maxed out T3). Combined with the 15% increase in local tanks due to the repper buff, this means that a boosted local tank after the patch will be 2.09 times stronger than an unboosted local tank on TQ today if the bonuses are coming from a command ship, and around 2.03 times stronger than an unboosted local tank today if the bonuses are coming from a T3. TL,DR - after Odyssey 1.1, linked active armor tanks will be around 14-15% weaker than they are on TQ today. So if we isolate the local rep bonus would this be accurate? Assume regular incursus with no links is tanking 100 dps. After this local rep bonus it will tank 115 dps. The exact same incursus with a fully bonused t3 ship would be tanking 177 dps without this local bonus. With the local bonus it will tank 203 dps. So this bonus adds 26 dps of tank to the linked ship but only 15 dps to the unlinked ship. This local tank bonus effectively mitigates the "nerf" to t3 ogb tank bonuses by 39%. I think the nerf to ogbs was way too weak and doesn't need to be mitigated. yes, your math is correct, but youre looking at it the wrong way. if a ship tanks 100 DPS with the old links it would tank 100 * 2.36 = 236 from a max bonused T3 (right now) with the new local bonus the ship will tank 115 DPS with the new links, it will tank 115 * 1.82 = 209.3 not only is this way less, its also way less of a difference I am looking at the specific bonus in the op and its effect on the gap between ogb ships and non ogb ships. This specific bonus widens the gap between ogb ships and non ogb ships. In the case above this specific bonus gives the ogb ship and extra 27.3 dps of tank. The exact same ship with no ogb only gains 15 dps of tank. Again this is the shell game. Saying this bonus is not a boost to ogbs is like saying boosting hams and heavy missiles is not a boost to drakes. It is. This boost to active tanks is a boost to ogbs. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Sigras Conglomo 479	Posted - 2013.08.02 18:50:00 - [243] - Quote ^^ except when they nerf OGBs at the same time. Yes, I agree a boost to local tanks is a boost to OGBs, but consider the following: the local tank boost is a 15% boost, the OGB nerf is a 25% nerf so the result is that OGB links are 10% less effective. Also youre forgetting the biggest thing that OGB links are used for, RR, which isnt getting a boost at all so this is a straight nerf to OGBs or are you somehow trying to say that the gap between OGB and non OGB local tanking is somehow bigger after this proposal? Because you can say that, but youd be unambiguously wrong
Cearain Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 1043	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:19:00 - [244] - Quote Sigras wrote: ^^ except when they nerf OGBs at the same time. Yes, I agree a boost to local tanks is a boost to OGBs, but consider the following: the local tank boost is a 15% boost, the OGB nerf is a 25% nerf so the result is that OGB links are 10% less effective. Also youre forgetting the biggest thing that OGB links are used for, RR, which isnt getting a boost at all so this is a straight nerf to OGBs or are you somehow trying to say that the gap between OGB and non OGB local tanking is somehow bigger after this proposal? Because you can say that, but youd be unambiguously wrong By "this proposal" I mean the one this thread discusses, not the proposals addressed in a different thread(s). And yes this proposal - the increase to local rep amount - increases the gap between ogb and non ogb. All of the buffs to active tanking that we have seen have been buffs to ogbs and they helped get us to the point we are at now. OGB = god mode. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Boris Amarr Viziam Amarr Empire 62	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:21:00 - [245] - Quote What about rebalancing Energized Armor Layering ???
Invisusira The Rising Stars The Initiative. 182	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:31:00 - [246] - Quote oh man I can't wait to fly my Paladin around lowsec now Core Skills \| EVE Music \| Internet Spaceship Killboard Link
Tobias Hareka Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 65	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:36:00 - [247] - Quote Cearain wrote: Sigras wrote: ^^ except when they nerf OGBs at the same time. Yes, I agree a boost to local tanks is a boost to OGBs, but consider the following: the local tank boost is a 15% boost, the OGB nerf is a 25% nerf so the result is that OGB links are 10% less effective. Also youre forgetting the biggest thing that OGB links are used for, RR, which isnt getting a boost at all so this is a straight nerf to OGBs or are you somehow trying to say that the gap between OGB and non OGB local tanking is somehow bigger after this proposal? Because you can say that, but youd be unambiguously wrong By "this proposal" I mean the one this thread discusses, not the proposals addressed in a different thread(s). And yes this proposal - the increase to local rep amount - increases the gap between ogb and non ogb. All of the buffs to active tanking that we have seen have been buffs to ogbs and they helped get us to the point we are at now. OGB = god mode. It's good thing they are looking for ways to remove OGB. Isn't that good?
Rush Kenni Deltia Defense Force 0	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:37:00 - [248] - Quote Good thing I'm training up for armor tanking. 15% more base repping for AARs is going to make ships with armor rep bonuses even better. Capless omni resists with strong capless active reps are going to make some ships very popular when this goes live.
raawe 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 44	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:49:00 - [249] - Quote Shield boosting is already far superior to armor tanking, why buffing it even more?! As someone here stated, buff armor for 20% or leave it at 15% but reduce cap, and give shield like 10% buff tops
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1416	Posted - 2013.08.02 19:58:00 - [250] - Quote Rush Kenni wrote: Good thing I'm training up for armor tanking. 15% more base repping for AARs is going to make ships with armor rep bonuses even better. Capless omni resists with strong capless active reps are going to make some ships very popular when this goes live. Please enlighten me with this fabled cap less active armor rep module. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious

Phaade Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us 27	Posted - 2013.08.02 20:36:00 - [251] - Quote This is a great change; I always thought local reppers were lacking.... Good stuff!
Luc Chastot Daktaklakpak. 438	Posted - 2013.08.02 20:50:00 - [252] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Rush Kenni wrote: Good thing I'm training up for armor tanking. 15% more base repping for AARs is going to make ships with armor rep bonuses even better. Capless omni resists with strong capless active reps are going to make some ships very popular when this goes live. Please enlighten me with this fabled cap less active armor rep module. He never said armor reps, so he must be talking about ASBs, which means he plans to omni tank or something; don't know which is more stupid though, omni tanking or inexcusable ignorance for a 5-year-old vet. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Caleb Ayrania TarNec Invisible Exchequer 206	Posted - 2013.08.02 20:52:00 - [253] - Quote One of the points I was trying to make to our talented devs was that its rather important to consider value of items as well as effects, and that changing local reps and pushing remotes and drones to later seems like something that will just make things more messy. When kill boards are measured in values killed, it becomes pretty important to not rock the status quo too much or miss balance one type over another. This was why I wanted some sort of statement from Fozzie that hints to how their philosophy and considereations are in that regard.. Personally I get the feeling that many changes are more based on tournament and big fleet fight considerations, and not the the underlying logistics and industrial system. Its as if there are quite a lot of "invisible" factors that gets pretty unbalanced from lack of larger perspectives? I could be overreacting, but from a market oriented player I see some rather strange results in supply and demand and profitability. Since CCP kinda promised this yeah would be dedicated to fixing some of these issues, I was just dropping that consideration in here..
Liang Nuren Heretic Army Heretic Initiative 3758	Posted - 2013.08.02 21:58:00 - [254] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b] I'd say that deadspace is still relatively unattractive when compared to ASBs, and I'd like to see them included in the boost. -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
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1417	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:10:00 - [255] - Quote Luc Chastot wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Rush Kenni wrote: Good thing I'm training up for armor tanking. 15% more base repping for AARs is going to make ships with armor rep bonuses even better. Capless omni resists with strong capless active reps are going to make some ships very popular when this goes live. Please enlighten me with this fabled cap less active armor rep module. He never said armor reps, so he must be talking about ASBs, which means he plans to omni tank or something; don't know which is more stupid though, omni tanking or inexcusable ignorance for a 5-year-old vet. But he did, passive omni resists (only armor has that) and a "cap less active reps". His whole paragraph is about armor tanking. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Phobia. 56	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:11:00 - [256] - Quote I am demanding implants for active armor rep ships, call it Mach Implants. get it dont.
masternerdguy Inner Shadow C.L.O.N.E. 1251	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:30:00 - [257] - Quote maCH'EttE wrote: I am demanding implants for active armor rep ships, call it Mach Implants. get it dont. Whenever someone suggests this, it proves they don't understand when to use shield and when to use armor, and want their preferred tanking method to do everything. Shield buffer tanking is inherently weaker than armor buffer tanking because shield buffers inflate signature radius significantly, negating some of the benefit of the buffer. Also, your shield buffer will usually be thinner than the armor buffer equivalent anyway. This is why Slaves exists to further augment armor buffer tanks, because that is where the natural strength of armor tanking lies. As for active shield tanking, it is quite nice. Shield boosters provide an excellent local tank on a ship with such a bonus, and the fact that these arrive at the start of the cycle means that you are more likely to save yourself (or someone else if you're a logi) than with an armor rep. Crystal implants play into this natural strength of shield tanking. But if you do want a Crystal set for armor reps, I want a Slave set for shield buffer. Fair is fair. Things are only impossible until they are not.
Shereza Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 172	Posted - 2013.08.02 22:39:00 - [258] - Quote Edit: Yeah, okay, I guess I'll post it just for the "obvious point is obvious" factor. Gustav Mannfred wrote: why not boosting the deadspace boosters too? after the changes, a t2 shieldbooster gives 690 hp, and a pith c-type large booster gives 660. means, a t2 booster is ways better. you should buff deadspace/officerboosters too. You're missing an "X-" before your "large." Also a Pith C-Type X-Large Shield Booster will still be easier to fit than T2 boosters, and thanks to having a shorter cycle time they will still rep more HP per second than T2 boosters will. As was already pointed out, "You're being bad."
Epic Violin Guy School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.08.02 23:28:00 - [259] - Quote I don't understand the need for nerfing links, or the people crying for them to get nerfed. If you don't like it plex another account and get some yourself.
Sigras Conglomo 483	Posted - 2013.08.02 23:29:00 - [260] - Quote Cearain wrote: Sigras wrote: ^^ except when they nerf OGBs at the same time. Yes, I agree a boost to local tanks is a boost to OGBs, but consider the following: the local tank boost is a 15% boost, the OGB nerf is a 25% nerf so the result is that OGB links are 10% less effective. Also youre forgetting the biggest thing that OGB links are used for, RR, which isnt getting a boost at all so this is a straight nerf to OGBs or are you somehow trying to say that the gap between OGB and non OGB local tanking is somehow bigger after this proposal? Because you can say that, but youd be unambiguously wrong By "this proposal" I mean the one this thread discusses, not the proposals addressed in a different thread(s). And yes this proposal - the increase to local rep amount - increases the gap between ogb and non ogb. All of the buffs to active tanking that we have seen have been buffs to ogbs and they helped get us to the point we are at now. OGB = god mode. so, youre making wild accusations completely disregarding the other proposed changes which fix the problem you seem to have . . . right perhaps you should look at all the changes together and see what the end result is going to be as opposed to criticizing this change as though the other changes werent going to take place. The fact is that when the entire change of 1.1 is complete the gap between local tanks using OGBs and not using OGBs will be smaller as the numbers have stated.

Pelea Ming Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor 313	Posted - 2013.08.03 00:21:00 - [261] - Quote Xequecal wrote: Pelea Ming wrote: SHield tanks are still notably more powerful then armor tanks for a variety of reasons, why not give shield reps a slightly smaller boost then armor reps? Like, say, 10%? or 12.5%? Aside from the ancillary shield boosters (which aren't getting buffed) and the Gist line of shield boosters, which also aren't getting boosted, shield really isn't better than armor. it's an arguable point, since for the same amount of raw HP, shield doesn't have to give up speed/agility, and also has passive regen, while armor is only gaining not having it's sig rad boosted by some mods/rigs. Oh, yea, and armor reps typically have higher cap drain to them. Also, even CCP acknowledges that shield is overall all somewhat superior to armor tank, hence the attempted addressing of that balance by introducing AARs and that overly-cap hungry resistance shifting hardner (the latter of which has still overwhelmingly been proven to be useless in PvP despite attempts to 'balance' it). (and from my own experience, because of it's cap need, usually useless in PvE on anything smaller then a BS)
Sigras Conglomo 483	Posted - 2013.08.03 02:16:00 - [262] - Quote Vyktor Abyss wrote: Not sure about this... I'm sure the shield boosters needed it, but armour reps across the board? It takes a really special person to look at shield and armor active tanks and say that the shield reps are the ones that need a buff Vyktor Abyss wrote: Pantheon Triage RR needs a buff? wat? the phrase "Pantheon Triage" is an oxymoron . . . In fact I dont think there is a part of this sentence that is correct Pantheon refers to a group of carriers RRing each other like a RR battleship gang Triage refers to a single carrier in triage mode which prohibits it from receiving RR Also, RR refers to Remote Repair which is NOT getting a buff, refer to the thread title where it states that "Local Armor and Shield repair module changes"
Pelea Ming Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor 313	Posted - 2013.08.03 02:31:00 - [263] - Quote Sigras, your first fail was not just ignoring Vyktor's fail... your second was replying to it. :P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Seriously, though, it was rather humorous and I'm glad you pointed it out as I'd overlooked it before though, thanks for the laughs! And, seriously, the Zealot should get a range bonus instead of that cap need bonus, just give it's base cap a buff.
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation 318	Posted - 2013.08.03 04:36:00 - [264] - Quote Sorry for the incorrect terminology for RR carriers. Your carefully crafted and witty replies have educated me greatly, so thank you. However I will stick to my opinions and ignore your opinions of my success or failure to express my own opinions. 1. When was the last time you saw a normal active shield booster (not ASB) in PVP? - for me it has been ages - perhaps the odd cyclone or maelstrom, but like around 1% in my experience of FW pvp recently. Hence I would say active shield tanking understandably needs a boost to make it more viable and competitive. 2. So 2 Archons tanking by mutually going triage and refitting to full hardeners when primary isn't Pantheon? My bad. Whatever its called if active reps including capital reps and RR get a 15% boost well guess what? Those carrier just got much harder to kill. I stand by my opinion this may screw things up a bit. 3. Frigates like the Incursus with its rep bonus, getting a further 15% is questionable considering the balance pass wasn't even very long ago and its rep bonus/potential has gone up and down like a yo-yo. This latest change could screw that latest balance up....again. Those are my opinions and as I said before - testing will identify I'm right or wrong on it screwing things up. I'd happily read your opinions of the changes Sigras/Pelea but you apparently haven't offered anything worth reading yet. Cheers.
Michael J Caboose Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 14	Posted - 2013.08.03 05:05:00 - [265] - Quote Vyktor Abyss wrote: Sorry for the incorrect terminology for RR carriers. Your carefully crafted and witty replies have educated me greatly, so thank you. However I will stick to my opinions and ignore your opinions of my success or failure to express my own opinions. 1. When was the last time you saw a normal active shield booster (not ASB) in PVP? - for me it has been ages - perhaps the odd cyclone or maelstrom, but like around 1% in my experience of FW pvp recently. Hence I would say active shield tanking understandably needs a boost to make it more viable and competitive. 2. So 2 Archons tanking by mutually going triage and refitting to full hardeners when primary isn't Pantheon? My bad. Whatever its called if active reps including capital reps and RR get a 15% boost well guess what? Those carrier just got much harder to kill. I stand by my opinion this may screw things up a bit. 3. Frigates like the Incursus with its rep bonus, getting a further 15% is questionable considering the balance pass wasn't even very long ago and its rep bonus/potential has gone up and down like a yo-yo. This latest change could screw that latest balance up....again. Those are my opinions and as I said before - testing will identify I'm right or wrong on it screwing things up. I'd happily read your opinions of the changes Sigras/Pelea but you apparently haven't offered anything worth reading yet. Cheers. 2 carriers in triage mode can't rep each other, because a carrier in triage mode cannot receive remote reps. Or are you just trolling?
Sigras Conglomo 483	Posted - 2013.08.03 06:00:00 - [266] - Quote Vyktor Abyss wrote: Sorry for the incorrect terminology for RR carriers. Your carefully crafted and witty replies have educated me greatly, so thank you. However I will stick to my opinions and ignore your opinions of my success or failure to express my own opinions. 1. When was the last time you saw a normal active shield booster (not ASB) in PVP? - for me it has been ages - perhaps the odd cyclone or maelstrom, but like around 1% in my experience of FW pvp recently. Hence I would say active shield tanking understandably needs a boost to make it more viable and competitive. Im going to ask you the same question about active tanked armor fits . . . of any kind . . . Even the LAAR and MAAR arent hardly ever seen in PvP. Up until the latest change, the most popular fits for the brutix and hyperion (which btw get an armor tanking bonus) was a buffer shield fit. If you take the number of active shield fits (including the ASB) vs the number of active armor fits (including the AAR) I bet that active shield wins by a mile and they both pale in comparison to buffer fits. Vyktor Abyss wrote: 2. So 2 Archons tanking by mutually going triage and refitting to full hardeners when primary isn't Pantheon? My bad. Whatever its called if active reps including capital reps and RR get a 15% boost well guess what? Those carrier just got much harder to kill. I stand by my opinion this may screw things up a bit. Im assuming you're talking about this? No that isnt Pantheon AFAIK there isnt a name for it, I just call it triage weaving. This is the pantheon video. That being said, archons in any configuration almost always have a damnation or legion giving them boost which means they will be less effective now with boosts than they were before with boosts. If anything this makes them worse. Vyktor Abyss wrote: 3. Frigates like the Incursus with its rep bonus, getting a further 15% is questionable considering the balance pass wasn't even very long ago and its rep bonus/potential has gone up and down like a yo-yo. This latest change could screw that latest balance up....again. Those are my opinions and as I said before - testing will identify I'm right or wrong on it screwing things up. I'd happily read your opinions of the changes Sigras/Pelea but you apparently haven't offered anything worth reading yet. Cheers. T1 frigate combat is unlikely to destroy the balance of the game, but it will be interesting to see what the new little guys are capable of.
Boris Amarr Viziam Amarr Empire 64	Posted - 2013.08.03 07:00:00 - [267] - Quote AAR shouldn't use capacitor like ASB. Amarr ships don't have enough capacitor to fire. How can they use active tanking. If you remove capacitor usage for AAR - it will be good solution to use active tanking for ship, that have troubles with capacitor.
Sigras Conglomo 484	Posted - 2013.08.03 08:46:00 - [268] - Quote Boris Amarr wrote: AAR shouldn't use capacitor like ASB. Amarr ships don't have enough capacitor to fire. How can they use active tanking. If you remove capacitor usage for AAR - it will be good solution to use active tanking for ship, that have troubles with capacitor. No, no more Neut immune local rep please. If anything needs to change, they should make the ASB use cap when loaded with cap boosters, just probably use way less cap Im thinking like 50 cap per cycle when loaded
W0lf Crendraven The Tuskers 120	Posted - 2013.08.03 09:28:00 - [269] - Quote Not sure if that has been mentioned yet, but this change makes pith-c shield boosters worse then dg ones, which needs to be changed.
Little Dragon Khamez Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition 295	Posted - 2013.08.03 09:30:00 - [270] - Quote The best buff for armour tanking would have been a reduction in cap usage and cycle time, so that they rep faster and use less cap, although an extra 15% is certainly welcome I can't see these changes doing anything to remove the dominance of shield tanking from the game as burst tanking armour is still weaker in relative terms. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20241123/1422
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.