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) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6830
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is one of a few threads discussing issues surrounding our changes to Command Ships, warfare links, and local repair modules for Odyssey 1.1 and beyond.
The other threads are : Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang Bonuses Command Ship Balancing Command Ship model changes
Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
This will be a fairly short OP but I wanted to keep the feedback thread separate.
Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% Let us know what you think! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Landaz
Raven's Flight Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
Wil u marry me ccp fozzie? My love for u is unending! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2100
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Good to see acknowledgement of a problem. Shield boosting recently has become synonymous with ASBs and whilst I'm not sure if this is all that is needed, it certainly is a step in the right direction. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
XXSketchxx
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
344
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. |
Capqu
Love Squad
188
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
thanks fozzie http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6844
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage.
They will affect local capital reps, yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
201
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2059
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
So my mission pimpmobile will now be even more invulnerable? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
383
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
TBH I'm not sure armour reps can take any absolute nerf, after link changes are factored in. Brawling is just dumb with cheap, easy, low SP ABCs and neut geddons now in the game. |
Judas II
Dark-Rising
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) |
|
Kasutra
Tailor Company Hashashin Cartel
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:So my mission pimpmobile will now be even more invulnerable? Your pimpmobile has a deadspace booster, right? If that's the case, no.
Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters are not deadspace or officer boosters, and thus will be buffed. |
Mizhir
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
28208
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:44:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Sweet. That was exactly what I wanted.
We will never forget you Saede!
I bet you dont see things like this so often in EVE |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6853
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc)
Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
Everyone go sell your Gist shield boosters now before the price crashes through the floor, their efficiency was why they were so valued and they just lost a huge amount of that advantage. |
Mirauder
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b]
Hating on the rich man |
Kururugi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
I wish to pvp with shield boosters instead of ASB's. will it ever happen again? Theres more than ASB you know...
good news anyway. |
monkfish1234
The Knights of Spamalot The Methodical Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
this almost sounds like your encouraging something other than buffer and logis........
possibly the best change in the last 4 years. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2059
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:54:00 -
[18] - Quote
Kasutra wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:So my mission pimpmobile will now be even more invulnerable? Your pimpmobile has a deadspace booster, right? If that's the case, no. Nope, a deadspace armor repper. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Well it's a start! I'm excited to test these changes out, and I'm excited for armor to be a viable option. Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 13:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
Excellent changes! Yet another wave of +1s for Fozzie How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
474
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
Kururugi wrote:I wish to pvp with shield boosters instead of ASB's. will it ever happen again? Theres more than ASB you know...
good news anyway.
For that they would need to use less capacitor.
THe main reason why ASB are superior is not the raw repair they ahve. Its that the normal shield boosters almost mandate you to bring a Cap injector, therefore another mid slot.
That is not feasible in many ships.. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
163
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nice |
M1k3y Koontz
Thorn Project Surely You're Joking
243
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
Mirauder wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b] Hating on the rich man
The only way to PVP with shield boosters currently is with ASBs or Deadspace, so buffing T2/Faction ones will make shield tanking cheaper. Its a good change. How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp. |
Zak Matrix
State War Academy Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:02:00 -
[24] - Quote
I think you should really balance the deadspace and officer modules on the same run, after these changes T2/faction boosters will be more effective than pith C modules. and officer modules have been underpowered for their level for ages.
and this is also kick in the nuts for those people who have invested in these modules, this will drop the prices a lot. |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
Quote:Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
I understand that giving 15% to deadspace/officer reps will make them too OP, but not giving nothing will make then loose the advantage they had in compaction to "normal" ones, is that intencional ?
why not given them 5% to keep them in line, proportionally speaking, with the "normal" ones? Unforgiven Storm for CSM 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. (If I don't get in in the next 5 years I will quit trying) :-) |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
123
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:06:00 -
[26] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:Quote:Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% I understand that giving 15% to deadspace/officer reps will make them too OP, but not giving nothing will make then loose the advantage they had in compaction to "normal" ones, is that intencional ? why not given them 5% to keep them in line, proportionally speaking, with the "normal" ones?
Someones about to lose out on deadspace/officer mod sales.
Good change. Local reps may become more viable, with the nos changes....
Yea I can see this happening. |
Baren
Aura of Darkness Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:07:00 -
[27] - Quote
CCP FOZZIE, If you dont incease ASB`s aswell wont that be considered another nerf to asb`s? it will the second nerf of ASB`s. you couldnt atleast give ASB`s a 5% increase... not everyship has bonuses like the new vaga and vargur |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1886
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
didn't see that coming but i don't complain. Hoped for something like "ship resistance influences remote rep amount" or something similar to close the gap. eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1189
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:13:00 -
[29] - Quote
Christmas in August? Sweet There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Johan March
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:15:00 -
[30] - Quote
A good change; but I am also of the opinion that deadspace and officer modules should be buffed by 5% or 7.5% to keep them in line with the other modules. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1386
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
A partial win for armor repping, but a huge problem with it still cap usage, they use a massive amount of cap for a "sustained" repair system. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Araneatrox
Claritech Skatteverket AB
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:17:00 -
[32] - Quote
Nicely Nicely, filling in the huge void in T2 to High Meta reps. Always seemed like a massive boost, maybe not so much anymore. |
Kristoffon Ellecon
The Bastards Shadow Cartel
95
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b]
Sir, a pox upon you and your family! WHY NERF DEADSPACE REPS?
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:19:00 -
[34] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:Quote:Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% I understand that giving 15% to deadspace/officer reps will make them too OP, but not giving nothing will make then loose the advantage they had in compaction to "normal" ones, is that intencional ? why not given them 5% to keep them in line, proportionally speaking, with the "normal" ones?
The Gist boosters are phenomenally overpowered and have been since forever, they absolutely need this relative nerf.
Imperial Navy MARs have a rep:cap ratio of 2. A-type MARs have a rep:cap ratio of 2.6. Going from faction to best deadspace is a 30% increase in efficiency.
Caldari Navy medium shield boosters have a boost:cap ratio of 1.5. With a SBA II fitted they have a boost:cap ratio of 2.04. Gistum A-type boosters have a boost:cap ratio of 4.473. With a pith X-type SBA fitted they have a boost:cap ratio of 6.49, a 218% increase in efficiency over faction.
So, basically, going from best faction repper to best deadspace repper lets you rep 30% more for the same cap. Going from best faction to best deadspace shield boosters lets you boost 218% more shield for the same amount of cap. Yeah, that's exceptionally fair. |
NUXI7
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
142
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:25:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. They will affect local capital reps, yes.
When will local capital hull reps be a thing? I want to hull tank my nidhoggur. |
De'Veldrin
Norse'Storm Battle Group Circle-Of-Two
1807
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
IB4
" WE DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT FOR OUR DEADSPACE AND OFFICER MODS, CPP PLSNAOKTHX!"
Please send all tears directly to me. I'm running low. GÇ£SandboxGÇ¥ does not mean that you will succeed at anything you attempt; it means you can attempt anything you want to succeed at. One of the largest obstacles in the way of your success is other players. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
651
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not.
they should at least get something, maybe 5% otherwise there going to be outta line OMG when can i get a pic here
|
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
384
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:31:00 -
[38] - Quote
As is being mentioned in places, it's the armour rep cycle time and cap usage that really makes the difference from links. Rolling these aspects into the raw modules would do far more for the viability of ships & fits to manage to run a couple of reps without being alpha'd first or far too vulnerable to neuts for the number of midslots they have. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:34:00 -
[39] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. they should at least get something, maybe 5% otherwise there going to be outta line They were out of line, with these changes they will be inline. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
611
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ironically, siege/armor links were what made active tanking a viable tactic. |
|
Jessica Danikov
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:39:00 -
[41] - Quote
So, basically, nerf gang links, nerf deadspace, double-nerf to anyone who dared used gang-links with deadspace modules...
As much as I hate how it's going to effect myself, deadspace and officer modules were meant to be a marginal increase for an expontential price. Instead, they become a significant increase for a.... I don't know, very exponential price, so they became practically required for anyone who was serious, despite the large outlay. Nice to have the progression smoothed out and it made more of a real choice again.
While I think the change is good for the game balance, it is going to hit those who invested in the modules the most- especially if they bought it recently. The module will no longer give them the benefit they were investing in, so they're going to be out of pocket a fair amount. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
127
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:45:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jessica Danikov wrote:So, basically, nerf gang links, nerf deadspace, double-nerf to anyone who dared used gang-links with deadspace modules...
As much as I hate how it's going to effect myself, deadspace and officer modules were meant to be a marginal increase for an expontential price. Instead, they become a significant increase for a.... I don't know, very exponential price, so they became practically required for anyone who was serious, despite the large outlay. Nice to have the progression smoothed out and it made more of a real choice again.
While I think the change is good for the game balance, it is going to hit those who invested in the modules the most- especially if they bought it recently. The module will no longer give them the benefit they were investing in, so they're going to be out of pocket a fair amount.
But they will continue to use them cause while the old stuff got stronger, the deadspace mods are still stronger than the old stuff, in addition, the value goes down to selling it would mean taking a loss, so instead, continue to use it.
....... maybe we'll see less 18 billion isk tengu losses in the future. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
624
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:48:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not.
This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG |
Marc McIntyre Crendraven
The Knights of Retribution
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:48:00 -
[44] - Quote
So i guess deadspace and officer ARMOR repair modules are also getting buffed, that would be awesome. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:48:00 -
[45] - Quote
Amazing, please go ahead with the OP |
Kobea Thris
Stay Frosty.
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:51:00 -
[46] - Quote
I've asked before, and your response was "Someday maybe", but I'll ask again here. Can Gallente and Minmitar get a their tank bonus on a cruiser please? It would be very awesome now. . |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 14:58:00 -
[47] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Unforgiven Storm wrote:Quote:Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% I understand that giving 15% to deadspace/officer reps will make them too OP, but not giving nothing will make then loose the advantage they had in compaction to "normal" ones, is that intencional ? why not given them 5% to keep them in line, proportionally speaking, with the "normal" ones? The Gist boosters are phenomenally overpowered and have been since forever, they absolutely need this relative nerf. Imperial Navy MARs have a rep:cap ratio of 2. A-type MARs have a rep:cap ratio of 2.6. Going from faction to best deadspace is a 30% increase in efficiency. Caldari Navy medium shield boosters have a boost:cap ratio of 1.5. With a SBA II fitted they have a boost:cap ratio of 2.04. Gistum A-type boosters have a boost:cap ratio of 4.473. With a pith X-type SBA fitted they have a boost:cap ratio of 6.49, a 218% increase in efficiency over faction. So, basically, going from best faction repper to best deadspace repper lets you rep 30% more for the same cap. Going from best faction to best deadspace shield boosters lets you boost 218% more shield for the same amount of cap. Yeah, that's exceptionally fair.
So you're saying that faction reppers are overpowered?
|
Danny John-Peter
Stay Frosty.
265
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:00:00 -
[48] - Quote
Seems again like some fairly Legit changes.
My Cap injected Hawk will fly again. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6900
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:06:00 -
[49] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG
You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2060
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:11:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you. Get out Excel and make some bar graphs! http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2397
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:11:00 -
[51] - Quote
While I like the change... how will this effect the solo PvP atmosphere?
Will the increase be to the point where two active rep ships will simply permatank each other?
|
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
299
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
ill take that 15% bonus!
prollem remains, the shield boost hits first, the armor has to wait till the end of the cycle. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
398
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:13:00 -
[53] - Quote
Is there no plans to look at other aspects of armour repping there has been many threads and discussions about ideas to improve armour repping including AAR's? beside just buffing rep amount as you must know there are other problems with armour repping besides just rep amount Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
387
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:16:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. They will affect local capital reps, yes. Listen, Fozzie, I'm all for active tanking getting buffs, but don't you fear that Archons will just be *that* much more overpowered and overutilized than they are now? I mean, you're going to have both gang links AND this change buff local capital reps--I can't see any other reason to use anything other than an Archon (or Chimera) at this point. Unless you guys are planning on adding a local repair amount bonus or shield rep bonus to the Thanatos or Niddy, then, you've effectively just killed those two ships for any uses outside some poor-decision-making ratting or POS repair.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
ElQuirko
Jester Syndicate S0UTHERN C0MF0RT
1706
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:16:00 -
[55] - Quote
Fozzie you gorgeous man <3 Save the Domi model! Spacewhales should be preserved. |
poepstreep66
Heralds of Vengeance The Nightingales of Hades
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:16:00 -
[56] - Quote
"Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% "
Once again sounds to me like a lazy way to balance out the shield/armor differences. Instead they should be balancing it in a smart way. Looking at things such as base hitpoints resistances etc. It is already a fact that armor has a bigger variety of modules to build up tank cq. armor shift hardners, energized plating, normal plating, active hardners. Then there is also the damage control unit which might also boost shield a little bit, but is still armor oriented.
This where shield resistance can be build up by just 2 modules. Amplifiers and hardeners. Where there is only avail. an adaptive version for the hardeners, not the amps.
Time after time you guys are picking easy and 'dirty' solutions, where instead you should be using more sophisticated solutions. Not to start about the way this game is getting dumber after each expansion. With dumb i mean lower entry, easier for newer players. Result will maybe be more income on short notice. More new players signing up. However how long will this last? New players will get bored at some point, leave the game. Where will that leave you? Tada, your hardcore group of players which all left the game cause of all the nerving and dumbing.
CCP you are looking at the wrong target market in your game.
Greetings, An eve player that is starting to get disappointed.
/end ragemode. |
Lord Eremet
The Seatbelts
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:16:00 -
[57] - Quote
Me like this very much. finally a boost to self-rep.
But I do have a question though, why 15% and not just move a all reppers up a level? that would be a 12,5% increase, example making a t2 rep as effective as a true sansha is now.
Not that I am complaining mind you, I just like round even numbers. |
blarggg
MuffinMen
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:17:00 -
[58] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed.
Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math) |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:17:00 -
[59] - Quote
Mole Guy wrote:ill take that 15% bonus!
prollem remains, the shield boost hits first, the armor has to wait till the end of the cycle.
True, but in exchange, armor repping is 15% more hp/s than shield boosters for less power. T2 medium shield repper is ~35 hp/s, while T2 med shield booster is ~30 hp/s
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:18:00 -
[60] - Quote
How bout some Numbers.... Yeah, I like numbers. The Law is a point of View |
|
Bloodpetal
Sal's Waste Management and Pod Disposal The Mockers AO
1360
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:20:00 -
[61] - Quote
Sounds great, lets see what happens. Where I am. |
Haradgrim
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:21:00 -
[62] - Quote
As much as I am in favour of this change, lord knows active tanking in PVP could use a helping hand. I'm a bit concerned that this is a massive buff to PVE ships and will lower the barrier to entry on things like incursions, high-end deadspace plexes, etc possibly to the point of causing inflation. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6921
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:25:00 -
[63] - Quote
blarggg wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed. Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math)
Not as part of this change no. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
628
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:28:00 -
[64] - Quote
With links affecting capital repair modules, will crystals work on capital shield boosters? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1390
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:30:00 -
[65] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:blarggg wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed. Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math) Not as part of this change no. I take it, it will be part of drone balance. *starts playing some where over the rainbow* Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Kern Blackash
Daktaklakpak.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:34:00 -
[66] - Quote
Does "deadspace" reppers include faction reppers? |
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
257
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:39:00 -
[67] - Quote
+1, would rep again.
Thanks Fozzie, this sounds great! |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
325
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:42:00 -
[68] - Quote
Will ASBs ever be nerfed again? They're still broken as ****. |
EMU EVIL
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 15:47:00 -
[69] - Quote
Haradgrim wrote:As much as I am in favour of this change, lord knows active tanking in PVP could use a helping hand. I'm a bit concerned that this is a massive buff to PVE ships and will lower the barrier to entry on things like incursions, high-end deadspace plexes, etc possibly to the point of causing inflation.
Any high level incursion site uses Logistics (remote repair) and thus the local repair bonus would not receive a buff. But, a nerf to OGB armor and shield boost links would nerf incursion communities. As for repair drones, I believe that would not fall under the catagory of Local repair and would not receive a buff.
I feel that capacitor rate needs to be kept the same on current boosters because people purchase boosters for PVE based on stable ship fits. I think that changing repair amount is the correct choice, but a flat change is not the way to do it, instead look at each individual booster or repper and individually scale them how they should be so we don't see huge changes in price. If we apply 15% bonus to certain reps but not others, then we'll see huge market shifts. Why not keep the order of efficiency of boosters the same as they compare to each other, but just tweak the repair amount numbers however necessary? |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
254
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you. Only Large and XL DG boosters have this problem, medium and small are fine, so there is no need to exclude whole group. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:12:00 -
[71] - Quote
Very good job here guys. I can tell the obvious idea is to keep Total tankability with ganglinks similar post change as it is on live however more of that tank will be made up in the form of the local reps/boosters rather than the links.
Combined with the new command ship changes this will do well for sure. |
JetCord
People of Random Nature
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:13:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
did i read that right? with gang link - the rep will be less - we are talking about capacitor usage right - not rep amount? if yes then that sentence will make sense.
why penalizing mission boat that are not fleeted or using ganglink ? unless that 2nd part of the sentence refer to to rep amount?
care to clarify
thanks |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
51
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:17:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This is one of a few threads discussing issues surrounding our changes to Command Ships, warfare links, and local repair modules for Odyssey 1.1 and beyond. The other threads are : Warfare Links, Mindlinks, Gang BonusesCommand Ship BalancingCommand Ship model changes Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now. This will be a fairly short OP but I wanted to keep the feedback thread separate. Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% Let us know what you think! armor reps should be 20 percent not 15, shield reps are so much OP compared to armor reps.. Take a look at how many people fly with armor reps vs shield reps. A ship that is shield rep usually has the speed and agility to gtfo, while the armor rep ship needs to stay in and brawl. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate Samurai Pizza Cats
571
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:21:00 -
[74] - Quote
Baren wrote:CCP FOZZIE, If you dont incease ASB`s aswell wont that be considered another nerf to asb`s? it will the second nerf of ASB`s. you couldnt atleast give ASB`s a 5% increase... not everyship has bonuses like the new vaga and vargur
ASB's are already OP. Give them some way to be vulnerable to cap warfare (say every 5th cycle injects a booster or something) and then I'll agree with you to give them some more repping power. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
476
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:21:00 -
[75] - Quote
Fozzie. you shoudl consider some modest reduction of capacitor usage on most of the local armor repairers. The main reason ASB are so much used, but not the armor ones, is the capacitor, not the final repair ammount.
Currently is nearly impossible to fit a decent local tank on a cruiser sized ship, exaclty because you will nto have enough capacitor!
To avoid issues, you could reduce the cap cost of all but the X Large modules, somethign like 15-20% would make wonders , specially for ships with less midslots that cannto affford a cap injector. |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
384
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:28:00 -
[76] - Quote
I'm a bit confused by this statement:
Quote: We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Or, are you saying that the nerf to gang links > the boost to local reps? Thus a net decrease in tanking if you were using both? |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:29:00 -
[77] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. They will affect local capital reps, yes. Listen, Fozzie, I'm all for active tanking getting buffs, but don't you fear that Archons will just be *that* much more overpowered and overutilized than they are now? I mean, you're going to have both gang links AND this change buff local capital reps--I can't see any other reason to use anything other than an Archon (or Chimera) at this point. Unless you guys are planning on adding a local repair amount bonus or shield rep bonus to the Thanatos or Niddy, then, you've effectively just killed those two ships for any uses outside some poor-decision-making ratting or POS repair.
The man makes a point, |
Tuxedo Catfish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:31:00 -
[78] - Quote
It's a good start, and I'd definitely give it a month or two to see how it shakes out, but I think the real issue isn't the raw rep amount, but rather the inability for armor to fit upscaled modules the way shields can.
Also, that the AAR is crippled in every conceivable way that the ASB isn't. Why does it use cap even when loaded? Why is it limited to one per ship? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Tribal Band
327
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:31:00 -
[79] - Quote
My XL active shield tanked Raven thanks you! Free Ripley Weaver! |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
752
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:33:00 -
[80] - Quote
what about a complete rework of the faction/complex/officere repairs and boosters? by having each "line" be different in other ways than cap use and rep amount? like cycle time, overheating bonus? like with the complex armor repairs theres like 3 different kinds 1 kind could be faster cycles (still good rep amount and adjusted cap usage to match) 1 would be most rep amount but longer cycles, and 1 would be very low cap usages, slightly less repaired and unchanged cycle time Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
|
Cpt Boomstick
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
383
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:40:00 -
[82] - Quote
Good point |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1236
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
I think the links are still a bit too strong.
Its really hard to balance something like this when there is a ship out there giving such massive bonuses (yes 25% is still a pretty ******* massive bonus)
Basically if you make reps good enough to work without links they are godlike with links. If you make them good with links they suck without. This is a balance nightmare. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
388
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:42:00 -
[84] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. Well, you're correct that shield > armor tanking active, but this is due to the XLASBs being fittable on Medium ships as well as the free cap use, combined with the fact that AARs can only be fit in a single slot. Also, don't forget that in addition to the XLASB, shields also have an option for a shield boost amplifier that makes the booster that much more effective.
I wish, given the fact that in order to repair armor more, you just need to add armor repairers, there'd be another option, especially since AARs are limited. I'd love to see something like a "refrigeration unit" (lowslot module) that would allow a much longer time on overheating on armor repairers. It wouldn't compete in the rig slots with nano pumps or nanobot accelerators and it'd allow a cap-free way of getting more armor repaired, albeit under heat.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
Reatu Krentor
Void Spiders Fate Weavers
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
Fozzie, While you are tweaking local reps and the ancillary modules, could you also consider changing reload times based on size of the module.? Currently all require 60s no matter what size of module and 60s is a lifetime for a frigate battle. If going by time to empty the module for AAR's it would be 24s reload time for a small AAR and 48s for a medium AAR to have the same proportion of reload time over runtime with paste. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:42:00 -
[86] - Quote
No oversize armor repairers on ship.
Lets just avoid that nightmare. |
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
129
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:44:00 -
[87] - Quote
Maximus Andendare wrote:Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. Well, you're correct that shield > armor tanking active, but this is due to the XLASBs being fittable on Medium ships as well as the free cap use, combined with the fact that AARs can only be fit in a single slot. Also, don't forget that in addition to the XLASB, shields also have an option for a shield boost amplifier that makes the booster that much more effective. I wish, given the fact that in order to repair armor more, you just need to add armor repairers, there'd be another option, especially since AARs are limited. I'd love to see something like a "refrigeration unit" (lowslot module) that would allow a much longer time on overheating on armor repairers. It wouldn't compete in the rig slots with nano pumps or nanobot accelerators and it'd allow a cap-free way of getting more armor repaired, albeit under heat.
Ships are generally strapped for lowslots as it is.
It would have to be a medium, even then dunno if people would sacrifice a slot just for that. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1056
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:50:00 -
[88] - Quote
One can hope from now on Armor reps are as good as shield ones? -if so then the 15% on armor looks a bit under the weather. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sentient Blade
Walk It Off
993
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:52:00 -
[89] - Quote
Time to fit my DG X-Large SB back on my Sleipnir. |
aetherguy881
Malformed Entity C.L.O.N.E.
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 16:53:00 -
[90] - Quote
Thank you for planning on stepping everything up and not just making a nerf for a rebalance! |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
494
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:00:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:(except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs)
So instead of actually addressing the imbalance in progression of power for deadspace/officer shield boosters on a more detailed levels you've just decided to not add a blanket buff you're giving to the other shield boosters?
While I agree with the motive, the actions just seem so half assed...
I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just that there have been multiple threads over the years in which the specific imbalances of deadspace/officer shield booster have already been outlined perfectly for you and your balance minions.
|
Gnoshia
Section 8. Fatal Ascension
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:05:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. They will affect local capital reps, yes.
Glad I trained for an Archon. |
Raimo
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:15:00 -
[93] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly.
Garviel Tarrant wrote:I think the links are still a bit too strong.
Its really hard to balance something like this when there is a ship out there giving such massive bonuses (yes 25% is still a pretty ******* massive bonus)
Basically if you make reps good enough to work without links they are godlike with links. If you make them good with links they suck without. This is a balance nightmare.
Oh yeah, these are still good points. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1391
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:26:00 -
[94] - Quote
Please CCP Fozzie consider reducing the cap usage on medium and large reps, small reps seem to be ok. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
NetheranE
Error-404 Cup Of ConKrete.
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:34:00 -
[95] - Quote
If I ever come to Iceland, I'm buying you several hundred rounds at the pub.
Best thought out set of changes yet, this amount carefully balances between the nerfs to gang links, while bringing cheap "solo" pvp back into its ability to compete.
Well done Fozzie. |
Sabrina Scatterbrain
United Souls Research And Development
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:35:00 -
[96] - Quote
CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
6994
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:37:00 -
[97] - Quote
Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell?
You don't want me rewriting the server code. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1239
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:40:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell? You don't want me rewriting the server code.
You could have a permanent job standing behind Veritas and poking him with a cattleprod whenever he starts looking tired. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Jason Dunham
Andvaranaut Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:46:00 -
[99] - Quote
I think this is a positive change for all areas of the game. It should help newer players in PVE if they choose that path to make money, and buffing local reps would definitely have interesting elements to pvp as well. Nice to see that perhaps buffer and logistics won't be the only way to go. I also appreciate the boost to armor reps, it always seemed weird that armor tanks were so far behind shield tanks.
I'm looking forward to having more flexible ship and fitting choices after this, keep up the good work. |
Gustav Mannfred
the bring back canflipping corp
67
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:48:00 -
[100] - Quote
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. i'm REALY miss the old stuff.-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=24183 |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1242
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:50:00 -
[101] - Quote
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.
Psssssssst, you're being bad. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Marc McIntyre Crendraven
The Knights of Retribution
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 17:54:00 -
[102] - Quote
The quote by CCP fozzie has the bit about deadspace modules not being increased under the shield boosters, does this mean that only deadspace/officer SHIELD boosters don'ts get treatment or does this apply to ARMOR reps as well?
( he said reps but said it next to shields, did he mean boosters?) |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2474
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:02:00 -
[103] - Quote
Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell?
Yeah, because game design and balancing is nearly the same thing as writing software.
Maroon.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
marVLs
348
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:10:00 -
[104] - Quote
Nice change |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
135
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:20:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% Let us know what you think!
Why are you doing this? This will be next hit in the nullsec.
With the changes to the exploration (magneto sites) now t2 probers rule in null - last time people where doing this in t3/bs/BC. Less juicy targets, and in case of income from this sites now is 1/4 less. What you are proposing will hit next type of nullsec income.
Phantasm - 150% speed bonus in cloak - 2LY jump range
|
Luc Chastot
Daktaklakpak.
433
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:24:00 -
[106] - Quote
This is an improvement for local reping, but in no way closes the gap between armor and shield, meaning the latter will still be better than the former. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1394
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:33:00 -
[107] - Quote
As an example of the cap problem with armor repping; the Hyperion, a ship designed to armor rep, recharges 8Gj/s with perfect skills. A large armor repairer II consumes 35Gj/s with level 5 skills. That is a -28Gj/s cap usage, hardly sustained. It would be nice for a single armor repairer to 0 out the recharge rate ad not go massive negative. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Sol Trader
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:34:00 -
[108] - Quote
and here i was under the impression ccp was capable of more complex balancing attempts. Like only 5% bonus to deadspace and 15% to everything else. Apparantly they are locked in to the number 15% though. |
Marc McIntyre Crendraven
The Knights of Retribution
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:36:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi
For Odyssey 1.1. we're going to be taking a swing at aspects of our warfare link features, as well as rebalancing command ships. We believe that the package of changes we've put together will be a significant step forward for the game, but it's definitely not the end of iteration on these features.
For years one of the most hotly discussed issues surrounding warfare links is their ability to apply bonuses to fleet members anywhere in the same solar system. We will not be changing this aspect of the feature in Odyssey 1.1. There are some serious technical hurdles to adjusting this aspect of the features, which are being worked on as we speak but for which we are not currently ready to announce an ETA.
What we will be changing for 1.1 is:
The strength of the bonuses provided by Warfare links The way that skills, ship bonuses and implants affect the strength of warfare bonuses The specific types of bonuses provided by the Information Warfare mindlink and Information Wafare: Sensor Integrity warfare link The method by which mindlink implants can be obtained The fitting requirements of warfare link modules, and their use within starbase forcefields Many aspects of Command Ship balance, including what bonuses they receive to warfare link strength The base rep amount of ALL ARMOR REPAIRERS and MOST shield boosters. looks like deadspace/officer ARMOR REPS will get boosted 15%, only deadspace/officers SHIELD BOOSTERS don't seem to be getting the treatment, which is good. They are already mega powerful as it is, maybe 5% boost for them would be ok though |
Klingon Admiral
Black Hole Cluster
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:40:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b] Let us know what you think!
Won't that make T2 shield boosters BETTER than the lowquality deadspace variants?
T2 XLSB now: 600 HP/cycle Pith C-Type XLSB: 660 HP/cycle T2 XLSB Ody1.1: 690 HP/cycle
All that while using the same amount of cap, and I honestly don't see cycle time as that important for XLSB. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2060
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:43:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell? You don't want me rewriting the server code. In before Ms. Scatterbrain says "CCP should take the money spent on you and use it to pay someone who can rewrite server code". http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
59
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:47:00 -
[112] - Quote
Sol Trader wrote:and here i was under the impression ccp was capable of more complex balancing attempts. Like only 5% bonus to deadspace and 15% to everything else. Apparantly they are locked in to the number 15% though.
Compare Gist X-Type X-Large Booster with Gist X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier to Centus X-type Large Armor Repairer. Do you see the difference? |
EMU EVIL
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:59:00 -
[113] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Maximus Andendare wrote:Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. Well, you're correct that shield > armor tanking active, but this is due to the XLASBs being fittable on Medium ships as well as the free cap use, combined with the fact that AARs can only be fit in a single slot. Also, don't forget that in addition to the XLASB, shields also have an option for a shield boost amplifier that makes the booster that much more effective. I wish, given the fact that in order to repair armor more, you just need to add armor repairers, there'd be another option, especially since AARs are limited. I'd love to see something like a "refrigeration unit" (lowslot module) that would allow a much longer time on overheating on armor repairers. It wouldn't compete in the rig slots with nano pumps or nanobot accelerators and it'd allow a cap-free way of getting more armor repaired, albeit under heat. Ships are generally strapped for lowslots as it is. It would have to be a medium, even then dunno if people would sacrifice a slot just for that.
I agree, For a shield tanking ship you can use low slots for shield recharger relays or power diagnostic systems; although rarely used and quite niche, i believe that these modules warrant some minor ability for an armor tanking ship to improve it's tank with mid-slots. a refrigeration unit sounds like a good idea. Why not a generic refrigeration unit midslot that reduces all heat damage similiar to the Strategic cruiser heat damage per level reduction bonuses? It would be another very niche module like the shield relay seen mostly in active tanking armor frigates if they can spare a midslot. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 18:59:00 -
[114] - Quote
At the frigate level I'll gladly take that buff for my Rifter but ... Incursus, LOL?
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:15:00 -
[115] - Quote
Urkhan Law wrote:At the frigate level I'll gladly take that buff for my Rifter but ... Incursus, LOL?
That little frig may never be killable again...
I agree with not buffing the deadspace/officer stuff. it is kind of.. well. op anyway.
This is mostly complaints from people who try to sell these things for some odd 500 million a module. |
Jureth22
FLA5HY RED
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:21:00 -
[116] - Quote
one thing i dont understand,why not increase the shield boost bonus of deadspace/officer? |
Aimee Maken
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:24:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%[/b]
Does that mean that a T2 XLSB will get 690 boost, meaning that many of the lower end pith boosters becomes there only for the easier fitting, while the gist line becomes more or less about cap and efficiency?
I can understand the non inclusion of the ASB given their power levels, but why is deadspace getting hit as well? |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1057
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:25:00 -
[118] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Urkhan Law wrote:At the frigate level I'll gladly take that buff for my Rifter but ... Incursus, LOL?
That little frig may never be killable again... I agree with not buffing the deadspace/officer stuff. it is kind of.. well. op anyway. This is mostly complaints from people who try to sell these things for some odd 500 million a module.
Faction shield boosters deserve a bit of buff, Tech II a huge buff, but Deadspace ones are already way OP.
Then as someone just says above, fit an X-type SB best quality with x-type shield boost amp and take a look at the numbers. Try doing same thing with armor reps no matter which one then tell us what happens?
ANd actually don't think incursus will be op in any form or shape, eve is not about 1v1 but players vs other players, solo pvp is not and should never be an argument of balance in an MMO daring to call it self an MMO. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:29:00 -
[119] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote: THe main reason why ASB are superior is not the raw repair they ahve. Its that the normal shield boosters almost mandate you to bring a Cap injector, therefore another mid slot.
Although that's true, the fact that ASB's boost more than officer modules certainly doesn't hurt. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:44:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not.
This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you. I would like to note that while this is true at the large and XL levels, it does not apply at the small and medium levels. They do come close, but not quite better in rep/second amount.
So I might suggest not completely skipping over DG modules, but taking it on a case by case basis. |
|
GreenSeed
612
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:52:00 -
[121] - Quote
nice changes, but im not too sure about the ASBs and AARs being left out. AARs were already on the weak side, they use paste AND cap. and ASBs were harshly nerfed recently.(deservedly so.)
now about deadspace, i have no complaints at all. they were insanely overpowered already, and anyone selling all their A types or X types to buy orders on a hurry is shooting themselves on the foot, Deadspace local tank will still be overpowered. |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Sol Trader wrote:and here i was under the impression ccp was capable of more complex balancing attempts. Like only 5% bonus to deadspace and 15% to everything else. Apparantly they are locked in to the number 15% though. Compare Gist X-Type X-Large Booster with Gist X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier to Centus X-type Large Armor Repairer. Do you see the difference? I see the difference. One of those configurations takes 2 slots, one only takes 1 slot.
Please, at least include a T2 ANP rig in that comparison. And yes, T2. It costs less than the boost amp for sure. It costs half as much, in fact. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 19:57:00 -
[123] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: ANd actually don't think incursus will be op in any form or shape, eve is not about 1v1 but players vs other players, solo pvp is not and is not an argument of balance in an MMO daring to call it self an MMO.
That's why they didn't change the Incursus rep bonus when they introduced the SAAR right? It is a *meta* change, it will change all ships that use them, ships with armor rep bonus will benefit more than the others, some ships with a rep bonus may need this change, Incursus is not one of them.
|
Minister of Death
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
60
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:01:00 -
[124] - Quote
What is an ASB? |
Goldensaver
ArTech Expeditions
210
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:03:00 -
[125] - Quote
Minister of Death wrote:What is an ASB?
Ancillary Shield Booster. Uses cap charges for ammo, doesn't cost cap to use while loaded. |
Jureth22
FLA5HY RED
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:05:00 -
[126] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Minister of Death wrote:What is an ASB? Ancillary Shield Booster. Uses cap charges for ammo, doesn't cost cap to use while loaded.
hes sarcastic lol |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
585
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:10:00 -
[127] - Quote
And X-Large Batteries? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Crash Lander
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:11:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.
I don't mean to be rude but this is sloppy. All you had to do to catch this was make a simple spreadsheet and look at the numbers.
If you chose to exclude those two you still have Republic fleet and Domination and the T2 better than C-Type in hp/activation cost. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:16:00 -
[129] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:AARs being left out But AAR's aren't being left out. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:24:00 -
[130] - Quote
http://tny.cz/cb6e52c2
Some numbers on the new boosters. Using tinypaste for better formatting. |
|
Lidia Caderu
Cobalt Academy Catastrophic Uprising
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:This is one of a few threads discussing issues surrounding our changes to Command Ships, warfare links, and local repair modules for Odyssey 1.1 and beyond.
This will be a fairly short OP but I wanted to keep the feedback thread separate.
Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% Let us know what you think! Really nice, but active reps still require cap... which is killed by MWD: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=264529 |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1057
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 20:51:00 -
[132] - Quote
Witchking Angmar wrote:http://tny.cz/cb6e52c2
Some numbers on the new boosters. Using tinypaste for better formatting.
Would it be too much to ask you to make under that page the same calculations for Armor reps, yes I'm lazy and bad with those things.
1st element that got my attention is cap efficiency difference in between T2 and dead space/officer, it's just about 140% better 2nd is faction dead space difference is still 100% better
Nothing gets closer with armor reps from memory but maybe someone will refresh my mind about this.
Edit and not even accounting T2 or faction/dead space Shield boost amplifiers who can perfectly stack with resist rigs, increasing efficiency. With armor we have a +%rep amount and cycle bonus (reps faster but consumes as much cap) but no way it gets with a single rig or module the same amount of rep bonus.
Not accounting of course on ships with rep bonus, combat boosters, links and implants, just flat numbers on simple ships. Difference is clearly abysmal. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:05:00 -
[133] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:GreenSeed wrote:AARs being left out But AAR's aren't being left out.
Indeed
CCP Fozzie wrote:[b] Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15%
CCP Fozzie how about tweak a bit those ARs pg/cap/cycle numbers? -I'm afraid this 15% while being an awesome addition is still a bit out of the line when we start comparing Faction AR and SBs and even greater is we compare dead space ARs vs SBs?
We also have nothing that can be compared with dead space or faction SBAs, ho yes we have a rig with a huge drawback but no navy/faction/dead space equivalent.
Implants and links should not be taken in to account, since this balance is about sub cap ships/modules therefore not relevant to the discussion at some point so my question remains valid I guess. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
I might have missed this as I skimmed over most of the post but with the boosts to the Rep amount on most mods could we also see an increase in DPS from Rats to make this more even. With this change I see Risk/Reward having a sharp decline in PVE as the rep amount on most ships now will be way above the Rat damage incoming.
|
xHxHxAOD
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:09:00 -
[135] - Quote
unless my math is wrong which it should not be. ex. caldari navy large shield booster gives 240 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap pith c type large shield booster gives 264 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap gist c type large shield booster gives 215 hp/3.2 for 90 cap after these changes
caldari navy large shield booster gives 276 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap pith c type large shield booster gives 264 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap gist c type large shield booster gives 215 hp/3.2 for 90 cap
in short there will be no point in using c types. i find it quite ******** that meta 11 mod is more **** than a meta 9 mod and the pith booster is harder to fit |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 21:35:00 -
[136] - Quote
xHxHxAOD wrote:unless my math is wrong which it should not be. ex. caldari navy large shield booster gives 240 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap pith c type large shield booster gives 264 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap gist c type large shield booster gives 215 hp/3.2 for 90 cap republic fleet large shield booster gives 192 hp/3.2 for 128 cap t2 large shield booster gives 240 hp/4 secs for 160 cap after these changes
caldari navy large shield booster gives 276 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap pith c type large shield booster gives 264 hp/3.2 secs for 160 cap gist c type large shield booster gives 215 hp/3.2 for 90 cap republic fleet large shield booster gives hp 220/3.2 for 128 cap caldari navy large shield booster gives 276 hp/4 secs for 160 cap
in short there will be no point in using c types. i find it quite ******** that meta 11 mod is more **** than a meta 9 mod and the pith booster is harder to fit
This is exactly why blanket balancing to a foundation that is not balanced will always end in a **** pile.
Stop being lazzy fozzie and crew. Dead space modules have needed an "Actual" review since implementation... Throwing some foolish "they don't get 15%" nonsense around is only making you and crew look even more incapable. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
407
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:01:00 -
[137] - Quote
OMG THIS IS F*CKING AMAZING!!!!!!!! |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
51
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:17:00 -
[138] - Quote
Again, armor reps should get an extra buff. Everyone knows that shield reps are OP compared to armor reps.
I dont even have to do the math. I flied both, and shield is so much better and easier. Why give alittle advantage to armor reps, armor ships are usually slow, need to stay on field and take damage. you need to put armor rep rigs on, which shield reps dont have to worry about. aar still use cap, unlike asb you still need to use your mwd, since you need to get on your target to do any damage, means less cap, sure you can put a cap booster, but there goes your mid slot.. Either give a little more advantage to the armor rep ships, or another idea is reduce the side effects of armor rep boosters along with a nice buff.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Paragon Blitz
594
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:29:00 -
[139] - Quote
Loving the look of this.
An enemy is just a friend that you stab in the front. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1060
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:36:00 -
[140] - Quote
GreenSeed wrote:Deadspace local tank will still be overpowered.
Confirming this. For a simple example lets pick the hated Hamgu with rep sub, a T2 SBA and an A type pith med SB.
It's 612 Hp rep per cycle and 800 OH
Add Crystals
Add Standard Blue Pill
Add boosting links like shield harmonizing and usual crap
You're getting over 1K physical reps per cycle on a medium shield repairer, it takes you no rig slot for it, and 1 med slot to increase your rep power to the point after the 2nd rep you've already gained more than fitting a faction shield extender, this is completely insane. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:45:00 -
[141] - Quote
Numbers for armor repairers as requested by Sergeant Acht Scultz.
Repairers (http://tny.cz/ab131103)
Boosters (http://tny.cz/c1fe6783) |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1036
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:45:00 -
[142] - Quote
Please stop buffing active tanks until ogbs are removed. Any buff to active tanks just dramatically increases the benefits from ogbs. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Marc McIntyre Crendraven
The Knights of Retribution
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:47:00 -
[143] - Quote
nice, one thing though, the links are backwards, boosters takes you to reppers and vice versa |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:49:00 -
[144] - Quote
Marc McIntyre Crendraven wrote:nice, one thing though, the links are backwards, boosters takes you to reppers and vice versa
Fixed. |
Arkanon Nerevar
The Riot Formation
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:51:00 -
[145] - Quote
interesting changes, should add new elements in selecting ships for even small gangs, i think its biggest impact will be on armor rep bonus ships, even with these changes i see active shield tankers sticking with ASBs, but with armor.., new hyperion could now be very interesting gang warfare wise
considering the vast price differences i do agree with other comments that deadspace/officer boosters also need a smaller (7.5%) buff Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Hail L |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1060
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 22:56:00 -
[146] - Quote
Thank you for the work.
Huge difference indeed. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:19:00 -
[147] - Quote
i did not understand one crap.. so which one is better, armor reps or shield reps.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1402
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:27:00 -
[148] - Quote
Under these numbers one point stands out above the rest and that is the HP/Cap/s A T2 X-Large Shield Booster II has an meta-efficiency of .34 A Large Armor Repairer II has a meta-efficiency of .15 Less than half as efficient as a shield booster and this is the big problem between the two. To make armor have a meta-efficiency of .34 without becoming OP the cap needs need to be reduced.
New HP 920 Cycle 15 Target Efficiency .34 920/15/.34 = 180 cap / cycle Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Messoroz
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
421
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:43:00 -
[149] - Quote
Sweet, my archon can now tank 10 supers with links, drugs, rep rigs and implants. (We already have 2 pimp fit archons that can tank 3 nyxes for ~10 minutes).
Perhaps you should stop overlooking the carriers when you buff the reps because all the changes are overdoing it just a little. |
Travasty Space
Pilots of Epic Tribal Band
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:44:00 -
[150] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Under these numbers one point stands out above the rest and that is the HP/Cap/s A T2 X-Large Shield Booster II has an meta-efficiency of .34. With skills at level 5 it is .38 A Large Armor Repairer II has a meta-efficiency of .15. With skills at level 5 it is .20 Less than half as efficient as a shield booster and this is the big problem between the two. To make armor have a meta-efficiency of .34 without becoming OP the cap needs need to be reduced. New HP 920 Cycle 15 Target Efficiency .38 920/15/.38 = 215 cap / cycle Edit: Reworked efficiency with skills at level 5.
Your missing the point of armor vs shield on local tanks. Shield gets the stronger Burst tank but harder to keep running(400 cap every 5 seconds on T2 X-large) vs stronger sustained tank for Armor(400 cap every 15 secondsfor T2 large). Now obv people having been working on ways around this(medium boosters) but that is the two themes of tank. It is why you see more videos of Armor tanking kronos' etc. then of shield boosting ships. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1061
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:49:00 -
[151] - Quote
maCH'EttE wrote:i did not understand one crap.. so which one is better, armor reps or shield reps.
Shields all day, at least for now and while the silliness of dead space shield boosters exist.
The best HP/cap/s for shield boosters is 0.84, the best number for armor reps is not even at half of 0.84
If you factor a T2 shield boost amplifier then the HP/cap/sec becomes beyond silly.
If you factor DS SBA it's even worst
If you pick a ship with enough mid slots, rep bonus, implants, combat boosters, OGB and dead space SBA+SB you see the picture. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1402
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:53:00 -
[152] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Under these numbers one point stands out above the rest and that is the HP/Cap/s A T2 X-Large Shield Booster II has an meta-efficiency of .34. With skills at level 5 it is .38 A Large Armor Repairer II has a meta-efficiency of .15. With skills at level 5 it is .20 Less than half as efficient as a shield booster and this is the big problem between the two. To make armor have a meta-efficiency of .34 without becoming OP the cap needs need to be reduced. New HP 920 Cycle 15 Target Efficiency .38 920/15/.38 = 215 cap / cycle Edit: Reworked efficiency with skills at level 5. Your missing the point of armor vs shield on local tanks. I didn't miss the point at all, hence the reason I am suggesting a cap reduction for armor repairers rather than a HP boost or a cycle time reduction .
Quote: Edit: the ASB vs AAR gives more to that point. You have really strong burst with the ASB but then nothing. Whereas the AAR gives a strong tank and either a weaker continued tank or reload.
The AAR was designed as a burst tanking module for armor tanking. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:54:00 -
[153] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Under these numbers one point stands out above the rest and that is the HP/Cap/s A T2 X-Large Shield Booster II has an meta-efficiency of .34. With skills at level 5 it is .38 A Large Armor Repairer II has a meta-efficiency of .15. With skills at level 5 it is .20 Less than half as efficient as a shield booster and this is the big problem between the two. To make armor have a meta-efficiency of .34 without becoming OP the cap needs need to be reduced. New HP 920 Cycle 15 Target Efficiency .38 920/15/.38 = 215 cap / cycle Edit: Reworked efficiency with skills at level 5. I was afraid of this kind of reaction in front of these numbers ; but active shield and armor don't relate axactly the same in ship fitting, and this stat (hp/GJ/s) mean nothing real and is only an indicator.
Main differences between shield and armor is that shield have more ways to improve cap efficiency but less ways to improve the already good burst efficiency whereas armor is the reverse. The second thing is that the best way to compare both tank is more dual rep vs SB+SBA than rep vs SB. But then, the comparison rapidly become really difficult because of combination number. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1061
|
Posted - 2013.08.01 23:57:00 -
[154] - Quote
Travasty Space wrote:Edit: the ASB vs AAR gives more to that point. You have really strong burst with the ASB but then nothing. Whereas the AAR gives a strong tank and either a weaker continued tank or reload.
Well AAR is nothing too because once you used all your charges you have no cap left anyway and AAR doesn't rep while reloading like ASB.
Now if you fit a 3mids armor ship with a cap booster instead of web yep you're going to rep a little bit (ridiculous amount) but also remember your AAR is only interesting over a regular rep when you overload it. If you don't overload then you're using cap+nanites for a ridiculous amount or reps and still using cap booster charges, to add insult to injury you can't overload for all fight without loosing your rep which means again, you're using cap for a ridiculous amount of reps.
AAR is cool for sneaky prots/legions/armor lokis , hit&run, cool in frigates unless you're fighting hawks and blarpies with medium ASB's, cool when you are double rep fit or triple to provide a small boost when OH but it's way too much hassle compared with ASB.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1061
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:11:00 -
[155] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:The second thing is that the best way to compare both tank is more dual rep vs SB+SBA than rep vs SB. But then, the comparison rapidly become really difficult because of combination number.
That would be true if SB+SBA were the equivalent of double armor reps but in fact this is very easy to verify it's impossible to compare or, how can you compare twice drawbacks (and not little ones) twice huge amounts of PG/CAP to 1 module using 1/3rd if not 1/4 the cap 4x faster cycling and a module using no cap ridiculous CPU/PG and ridiculous drawbacks?
There's no comparison possible, even if you pick a T2 rig + AR vs SB+SBA we're far away from anything comparable, shield modules are way out of whack for ages, numerous threads about this for ages and there's a verifiable reason for this: once you can fly all sub cap ships and fit them you understand quickly what are the "I win buttons"
It's really not for fun or because armor is so awesome armor ships often fit shieldmods except for large fleets, well except Baltec Even with mediocre number of mid slots you can push stronger ships than armor fitted, if you don't see an issue here but creativity I have to disagree with you. I'd see some creativity if the difference was made by player skill and not completely OP modules. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3215
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:19:00 -
[156] - Quote
CHRISTMAS CAME EARLY THIS YEAR
**** YEAH
And Sergeant, shield scrubs don't have RAH
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
354
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:31:00 -
[157] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:That would be true if SB+SBA were the equivalent of double armor reps but in fact this is very easy to verify it's impossible to compare or, how can you compare twice drawbacks (and not little ones) twice huge amounts of PG/CAP to 1 module using 1/3rd if not 1/4 the cap 4x faster cycling and a module using no cap ridiculous CPU/PG and ridiculous drawbacks? There's no comparison possible, even if you pick a T2 rig + AR vs SB+SBA we're far away from anything comparable, shield modules are way out of whack for ages, numerous threads about this for ages and there's a verifiable reason for this: once you can fly all sub cap ships and fit them you understand quickly what are the "I win buttons" It's really not for fun or because armor is so awesome armor ships often fit shieldmods except for large fleets, well except Baltec Even with mediocre number of mid slots you can push stronger ships than armor fitted, if you don't see an issue here but creativity I have to disagree with you. I'd see some creativity if the difference was made by player skill and not completely OP modules. I'm not saying they are well balanced and we live in a perfect world but that when you compare a complete fit with 2*LAR2 + rigs vs XLSB2+SBA2+rig then the differences decrease a lot. Just try it. And the CPU cost of XLSB+SBA is not to forget.
But then I actually don't have a clue about faction/officer/deadspace modules and I'm only talking about T2 balance. |
Serenity Zipher
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:38:00 -
[158] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, please!!! reduce the cap usage of medium and large Armour reps, they are unsustainable, especially after training the repair systems skill to 5. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Academy The ROC
695
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:41:00 -
[159] - Quote
I heartily applaud the improvement to armor, especially the AAR, it needed the love. Good change overall. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á |
Oberus MacKenzie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:42:00 -
[160] - Quote
Serenity Zipher wrote:CCP Fozzie, please!!! reduce the cap usage of medium and large Armour reps, they are unsustainable, especially after training the repair systems skill to 5.
They're not supposed to be sustainable.
Good changes, except for the sly little shield nerf in there. Minmatar at least have their speed to help them tank damage, so it's not so bad for them, but the Caldari just get more and more useless by the day... Seriously, are you guys gonna give SP refunds for our Caldari ship skills? |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1402
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:48:00 -
[161] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:That would be true if SB+SBA were the equivalent of double armor reps but in fact this is very easy to verify it's impossible to compare or, how can you compare twice drawbacks (and not little ones) twice huge amounts of PG/CAP to 1 module using 1/3rd if not 1/4 the cap 4x faster cycling and a module using no cap ridiculous CPU/PG and ridiculous drawbacks? There's no comparison possible, even if you pick a T2 rig + AR vs SB+SBA we're far away from anything comparable, shield modules are way out of whack for ages, numerous threads about this for ages and there's a verifiable reason for this: once you can fly all sub cap ships and fit them you understand quickly what are the "I win buttons" It's really not for fun or because armor is so awesome armor ships often fit shieldmods except for large fleets, well except Baltec Even with mediocre number of mid slots you can push stronger ships than armor fitted, if you don't see an issue here but creativity I have to disagree with you. I'd see some creativity if the difference was made by player skill and not completely OP modules. I'm not saying they are well balanced and we live in a perfect world but that when you compare a complete fit with 2*LAR2 + rigs vs XLSB2+SBA2+rig then the differences decrease a lot. Just try it. And the CPU cost of XLSB+SBA is not to forget. But then I actually don't have a clue about faction/officer/deadspace modules and I'm only talking about T2 balance. I did ETF those configurations and the resulting was shield boosting was more cap efficient but both were the same HP/sec. Which brings me back to the point of reduce the cap needs of armor repairers. Edit:I used the same ship so the capacitor numbers would not be off, the difference was 7gj/s with shield boosting at about 56 and armor at 63gj/s. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Oberus MacKenzie
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 00:56:00 -
[162] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:That would be true if SB+SBA were the equivalent of double armor reps but in fact this is very easy to verify it's impossible to compare or, how can you compare twice drawbacks (and not little ones) twice huge amounts of PG/CAP to 1 module using 1/3rd if not 1/4 the cap 4x faster cycling and a module using no cap ridiculous CPU/PG and ridiculous drawbacks? There's no comparison possible, even if you pick a T2 rig + AR vs SB+SBA we're far away from anything comparable, shield modules are way out of whack for ages, numerous threads about this for ages and there's a verifiable reason for this: once you can fly all sub cap ships and fit them you understand quickly what are the "I win buttons" It's really not for fun or because armor is so awesome armor ships often fit shieldmods except for large fleets, well except Baltec Even with mediocre number of mid slots you can push stronger ships than armor fitted, if you don't see an issue here but creativity I have to disagree with you. I'd see some creativity if the difference was made by player skill and not completely OP modules. I'm not saying they are well balanced and we live in a perfect world but that when you compare a complete fit with 2*LAR2 + rigs vs XLSB2+SBA2+rig then the differences decrease a lot. Just try it. And the CPU cost of XLSB+SBA is not to forget. But then I actually don't have a clue about faction/officer/deadspace modules and I'm only talking about T2 balance. I did ETF those configurations and the resulting was shield boosting was more cap efficient but both were the same HP/sec. Which brings me back to the point of reduce the cap needs of armor repairers.
If you look at capital mods and remote repair, armor is a lot more cap efficient than shield. Also something to consider is that armor can still pack a much better buffer tank than shields, have higher native resists, get a greater benefit from damage controls and have EANM's which use no capacitor, whereas the Invuln uses quite a bit. I think in the grand scheme of things it evens out. I mean come on, shield has to have an advantage over armor in something, right? |
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Pixel Navigators
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:16:00 -
[163] - Quote
Oberus MacKenzie wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:That would be true if SB+SBA were the equivalent of double armor reps but in fact this is very easy to verify it's impossible to compare or, how can you compare twice drawbacks (and not little ones) twice huge amounts of PG/CAP to 1 module using 1/3rd if not 1/4 the cap 4x faster cycling and a module using no cap ridiculous CPU/PG and ridiculous drawbacks? There's no comparison possible, even if you pick a T2 rig + AR vs SB+SBA we're far away from anything comparable, shield modules are way out of whack for ages, numerous threads about this for ages and there's a verifiable reason for this: once you can fly all sub cap ships and fit them you understand quickly what are the "I win buttons" It's really not for fun or because armor is so awesome armor ships often fit shieldmods except for large fleets, well except Baltec Even with mediocre number of mid slots you can push stronger ships than armor fitted, if you don't see an issue here but creativity I have to disagree with you. I'd see some creativity if the difference was made by player skill and not completely OP modules. I'm not saying they are well balanced and we live in a perfect world but that when you compare a complete fit with 2*LAR2 + rigs vs XLSB2+SBA2+rig then the differences decrease a lot. Just try it. And the CPU cost of XLSB+SBA is not to forget. But then I actually don't have a clue about faction/officer/deadspace modules and I'm only talking about T2 balance. I did ETF those configurations and the resulting was shield boosting was more cap efficient but both were the same HP/sec. Which brings me back to the point of reduce the cap needs of armor repairers. If you look at capital mods and remote repair, armor is a lot more cap efficient than shield. Also something to consider is that armor can still pack a much better buffer tank than shields, have higher native resists, get a greater benefit from damage controls and have EANM's which use no capacitor, whereas the Invuln uses quite a bit. I think in the grand scheme of things it evens out. I mean come on, shield has to have an advantage over armor in something, right?
DPS and speed usually.
That said, I like the balance between armor and shield at the moment tbh |
NaK'Lin
the united Negative Ten.
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:19:00 -
[164] - Quote
I see were Armor and shield tanks are different. Also, I fly both of them. I like both of them, and I like their differences. EvE was a sandbox once upon a time, and we are getting to a place where everything is becoming vanilla and balanced out to be equal; in the end, we'll fly the ships we like by their looks because it won't matter, it'll be no different than any other ship. I've seen this in other games; which is why I don't play them anymore.
Active shield tanks are in no way inferior to armor tanks. I can get my maelstrom to tank insane amounts with a deadspace booster. Amounts that any of my armor tanked ships dreams about. It is more than just the module. So when CCP will boost Shield tanks to the point that they think its "balanced", will they then wake up and realize that shield tanking has an implant set for it and armor doesn't? Oups.
Plug your crystals, gents, and you won't regret doing it. Hell, with boosts and bluepill a tengu can tank roughly 8k DPS omni in a very ******** way while boasting 530dps and fitting a point and a prop and be fully pvp-viable. I can't get tank on armor ships, not even with boost and pills. So where is the problem? The Hyperion is an armor tanker.. it can now tank "like a beast". Great. also needs to pack 3 reppers to do that and will only do 500-700ish dps. Currently I tank better in a maelstrom with crystals. plus, i get the same or more DPS because my lows are free. Armor tankers have to trade dps and range. Not enough they are slow as derp.
Maybe people should stop whining so much and maybe then a game that was awesome because of many strange mechanics made it such a sweet place where players had to be a little ingenuous to come up with ways to utilize things, instead of being catered crap.
One last note: Boosting shield reps and NOT boosting deadspace mods is plain intellectually challenged. Might as well remove them from the game then. The difference between the T2 x-large and a gist x-x large has been cut so much it isn't funny anymore. It'll only be viable now due to fitting reqs and cap usage. but surely not for its reps over T2. Stop tinkering with values in a database and give us a real expansion. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:35:00 -
[165] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:That would be true if SB+SBA were the equivalent of double armor reps but in fact this is very easy to verify it's impossible to compare or, how can you compare twice drawbacks (and not little ones) twice huge amounts of PG/CAP to 1 module using 1/3rd if not 1/4 the cap 4x faster cycling and a module using no cap ridiculous CPU/PG and ridiculous drawbacks? There's no comparison possible, even if you pick a T2 rig + AR vs SB+SBA we're far away from anything comparable, shield modules are way out of whack for ages, numerous threads about this for ages and there's a verifiable reason for this: once you can fly all sub cap ships and fit them you understand quickly what are the "I win buttons" It's really not for fun or because armor is so awesome armor ships often fit shieldmods except for large fleets, well except Baltec Even with mediocre number of mid slots you can push stronger ships than armor fitted, if you don't see an issue here but creativity I have to disagree with you. I'd see some creativity if the difference was made by player skill and not completely OP modules. I'm not saying they are well balanced and we live in a perfect world but that when you compare a complete fit with 2*LAR2 + rigs vs XLSB2+SBA2+rig then the differences decrease a lot. Just try it. And the CPU cost of XLSB+SBA is not to forget. But then I actually don't have a clue about faction/officer/deadspace modules and I'm only talking about T2 balance. I did ETF those configurations and the resulting was shield boosting was more cap efficient but both were the same HP/sec. Which brings me back to the point of reduce the cap needs of armor repairers. Edit:I used the same ship so the capacitor numbers would not be off, the difference was 7gj/s with shield boosting at about 56 and armor at 63gj/s. adding more cap will not work. usually people fly either ammar or gal ships for armor tanks, do you know why it wont help that much if more cap is given. Nuets. shield boosters have that advantage, try taking cap from a sliep, he gonna look at you and think your stupid, cuz you really are not doing anything efficent except burning your own pg. Whats the point of nueting sliep if he does not need cap at all for guns or for the shield boosts. And lets not forget the implants that are available for shield boosters..Crystals baby. Ohh wait, there are none for armor rep ships. |
Kai Pirinha
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:47:00 -
[166] - Quote
I'm not quite sure if it has been mentioned yet, but what about Hull Repairers? Are they going to be buffed as well and can we get links for them too? Odyssey Expansion - good bye quality, hello lemming train *still waiting for the exploration-themed expansion* Thanks for making the former exploration as dull and mind-numbing as mission running. |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
228
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 01:53:00 -
[167] - Quote
Incursus will be OP. Consider turning down the frigate skill bonus down slightly. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Trinkets friend
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
1075
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:02:00 -
[168] - Quote
I am 50/50 on this.
On one hand, T2 small shield boosters and T2 large shield boosters are so worthless for anything at the moment it is hilarious. Who ever fits them to anything? You may as well go an ASB, refit for medium or XL, or go pimp. So this is good.
XL boosters seem fine at the moment, given they fit on everything from cruisers (Moa) to BC's (Cyclone/Sleip) to BS's (Mael). The former would go an XL-ASB, the latter can do XL vanilla and still get a reasonable tan. Is 15% more going to matter? For the Moa, yes. Cyclone/Sleip with vanilla XL booster...definitely. The Maelstrom...not so much.
Faction boosters are also OK. There's a variety, and uses for most (but not all) flavours of boosters on various fits. Narrowing the gaps with deadspace will see faction booster prices increase in some cases (DG LSB) and stay the same for others (CN smalls, eg, due to Pith A smalls being cap misers on the 2 Small Pith-A SB Tengu). This is in effect a buff to LP and low/null mission income and some missioner income, which is fine; people will cash LPs differently and choose different agents and corporations, which is a Good Thing.
Armour-wise...active armour tanks on frigates are already pretty damn good. However, we really, really need to take this in the context of the Command Ship changes. Active armour is more often the tanking method advantaged by OGB's in frig and cruiser combat. Very little is done to run Tengu links for active shield or buffer shield fleets - it is better to run skirmish for shield fleets as the sig benefit and mobility benefits for shield nano fleets are additive but buffing tank alone just defeats the purpose. ie; better to have 32km point 43% extra speed and 37% less sig than...bugger all more resists and slightly better Scythe or osprey reps.
This is not true for Armour frigs/cruisers where you already have a lower sig, and just need the rep and resist and buffer bonuses of a Legion/Damnation link. You can, in fact, make semi-active armour cruisers and frigs work. 1600 plate + MAAR AHAC is a thing and it works damn fine....does it need a 15% boost? To my mind, maybe not.
This doesn't hold true for BS's, where active BS tanks are as a rule, horrible for PVP. Even 15% is barely addressing the issue, even if you add gang links. You will still have to take drugs, and it's more effective to bring logi. Active armour tanks come nowhere near matching the DPS of one opponent of equal size, whereas in shield you can do Maelstroms which can tank one opponent easily.
So, not a panacea, but in some areas definitely a step in the right direction. But that's obvious; blanket changes don't address the red-headed step children. YOLO is the Carpe Diem of Gen Y http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Trinkets friend
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
1075
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:05:00 -
[169] - Quote
How about halving the cycle time, CPU cost and activation cost? Do you know how long it takes to rep the hull on a carrier after you've survived a super hotdrop? Clue: 3.5 hours. YOLO is the Carpe Diem of Gen Y http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Pixel Navigators
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:21:00 -
[170] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Incursus will be OP. Consider turning down the frigate skill bonus down slightly.
With AB and SAAR running the incursus gets about 50 seconds of cap life before capping right out. It's pretty strong in the opening of an engagement but it's still not going to be OP. |
|
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
229
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:32:00 -
[171] - Quote
Tetsuo Tsukaya wrote:Zappity wrote:Incursus will be OP. Consider turning down the frigate skill bonus down slightly.
With AB and SAAR running the incursus gets about 50 seconds of cap life before capping right out. It's pretty strong in the opening of an engagement but it's still not going to be OP.
That's a reasonable point. Just over a minute. My initial response is that if a frigate fight with the Incursus goes for longer than 30 seconds you have failed anyway. If you dictate range you will win by gank.
But yeah, cap is a pretty big balancing limitation which is already firmly in place. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Moksa Elodie
Black-Watch Corporation Heretic Initiative
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 02:41:00 -
[172] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:
One last note: Boosting shield reps and NOT boosting deadspace mods is plain intellectually challenged. Might as well remove them from the game then. The difference between the T2 x-large and a gist x-x large has been cut so much it isn't funny anymore. It'll only be viable now due to fitting reqs and cap usage. but surely not for its reps over T2. Stop tinkering with values in a database and give us a real expansion.
I agree with you on this, certain deadspace shield boosters do need looking at in regards to this change.
Possibly a small increase in cap usage alongside a shield boost amount?
Also a few charts would be nice |
Endeavour Starfleet
913
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:05:00 -
[173] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:blarggg wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed. Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math) Not as part of this change no.
Would you please consider making it part of this change then? These drones are underpowered in my opinion. |
Naomi Anthar
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:21:00 -
[174] - Quote
You have no idea how happy i'm about this change. Glad they decided to skip pith/gist boosters. They are op as hell. Now that i have more than 40 deadspace local reps :PP. Will put them to good use or sell for reasonable price (hopefully it will increase).
Anyway change is good . Especially that SAAR was already somehow good. Now for once i won't complain at all. Armor local reps are now giving enough hp tanked per second - and that was major drawback vs shield boosters.
Not sure if that is enough or still needs tweaking. Need to test this stuff out , before i set my mind .
But absolutely big +1. Keep good work CCP. |
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
407
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:22:00 -
[175] - Quote
NaK'Lin wrote:I see were Armor and shield tanks are different. Also, I fly both of them. I like both of them, and I like their differences. EvE was a sandbox once upon a time, and we are getting to a place where everything is becoming vanilla and balanced out to be equal; in the end, we'll fly the ships we like by their looks because it won't matter, it'll be no different than any other ship. I've seen this in other games; which is why I don't play them anymore.
Active shield tanks are in no way inferior to armor tanks. I can get my maelstrom to tank insane amounts with a deadspace booster. Amounts that any of my armor tanked ships dreams about. It is more than just the module. So when CCP will boost Shield tanks to the point that they think its "balanced", will they then wake up and realize that shield tanking has an implant set for it and armor doesn't? Oups.
Plug your crystals, gents, and you won't regret doing it. Hell, with boosts and bluepill a tengu can tank roughly 8k DPS omni in a very ******** way while boasting 530dps and fitting a point and a prop and be fully pvp-viable. I can't get tank on armor ships, not even with boost and pills. So where is the problem? The Hyperion is an armor tanker.. it can now tank "like a beast". Great. also needs to pack 3 reppers to do that and will only do 500-700ish dps. Currently I tank better in a maelstrom with crystals. plus, i get the same or more DPS because my lows are free. Armor tankers have to trade dps and range. Not enough they are slow as derp.
Maybe people should stop whining so much and maybe then a game that was awesome because of many strange mechanics made it such a sweet place where players had to be a little ingenuous to come up with ways to utilize things, instead of being catered crap.
One last note: Boosting shield reps and NOT boosting deadspace mods is plain intellectually challenged. Might as well remove them from the game then. The difference between the T2 x-large and a gist x-x large has been cut so much it isn't funny anymore. It'll only be viable now due to fitting reqs and cap usage. but surely not for its reps over T2. Stop tinkering with values in a database and give us a real expansion.
|
Sylvanium Orlenard
EVE University Ivy League
35
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:23:00 -
[176] - Quote
Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem? |
Naomi Anthar
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 04:44:00 -
[177] - Quote
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem?
Yes the only one ... keep in mind that reps doesnt slow or increase signature of ship as buffer. Also they consume less pwg than plate for example. That's right there are advantages too going for local reps vs buffer. Not only that but also they provide more ehp - should you live long enough to benefit from it (fair trade i guess).
If all i think gallente ships are too strong now, not too weak as you try to say. They are very strong on battleship level ... if not strongest atm. They are powerhouse among capitals aswell. Damn they are strong everywhere - including small gang pvp where they are strong as always.
I'm actually thinking that it's time to reduce rep bonus (it wasn't op but now is) to 5-6% per level. Ships like incursus are already almost immortal as long as they have cap (with cap booster its VERY long) |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3216
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:01:00 -
[178] - Quote
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem?
Yes, you are. Rest of us fit cap boosters.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Pseudo Ucksth
B0rthole Test Alliance Please Ignore
162
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:11:00 -
[179] - Quote
I only saw one person bring it up but it seems like a pretty important question:
Are reps firing at the beginning/end of a cycle getting looked at? A change to this could greatly change the armor meta, especially RR and fleet doctrines that rely on armor logi |
Cristy Hashur
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:26:00 -
[180] - Quote
nice CCP really nice!
overboost cap reps its really what we need
such as shield-tanked moros or vertical naglfar with 70-90k dps tankin'!
its cool
MORE! MORE!
haha
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1404
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:30:00 -
[181] - Quote
Roime wrote:Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem? Yes, you are. Rest of us fit cap boosters. So it is fine that the "sustained" tanking system requires 3 modules and 2 rigs to do what Burst tanking can do with 2 modules and 2 rigs? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Zappity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
230
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:43:00 -
[182] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Roime wrote:Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem? Yes, you are. Rest of us fit cap boosters. So it is fine that the "sustained" tanking system requires 3 modules and 2 rigs to do what Burst tanking can do with 2 modules and 2 rigs?
Um, yes. Sustained tanking is, well, sustained whereas burst runs out pretty fast. Sustained should be harder to fit and/or run. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.") |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1404
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 05:51:00 -
[183] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Roime wrote:Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem? Yes, you are. Rest of us fit cap boosters. So it is fine that the "sustained" tanking system requires 3 modules and 2 rigs to do what Burst tanking can do with 2 modules and 2 rigs? Um, yes. Sustained tanking is, well, sustained whereas burst runs out pretty fast. Sustained should be harder to fit and/or run. Shield boosting will sustain longer than armor repairing in this case. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Job Valador
Super Moose Defence Force
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 06:52:00 -
[184] - Quote
I want your children fozzie "The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement." |
Mole Guy
Xoth Inc Pandorum Invictus
300
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 07:48:00 -
[185] - Quote
as i have posted many times before:
armor needs to be changed to a 3 second cycle time. with levels, change the amount repped. drop the repped amount and cap drain per cycle, but speed it up.
we dont need more rep here or there, just balance them out so armor doesnt have to wait 15 seconds to get their armor. its not balanced that shield gets theirs immediately and then again every 3 seconds and we have to wait so long.
i dont care if u wanna leave it at the end of the cycle, but it needs to cycle quicker. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
998
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:20:00 -
[186] - Quote
I am concerned about the impact of this change on frigates - buffer-tanking isn't in a great place as is (unless you run with a HG Slave set) and this change will only make matters worse.
Where is the problem that you are trying to fix by giving small armor repairers a 15% boost? Is the dual-rep Incursus, Vengeance, ... too weak as is or are you just trying to make these ships unkillable? Do you want active tank to be the only option on brawling frigates? |
Erutpar Ambient
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Black Core Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:27:00 -
[187] - Quote
Dear Foz et all,
Please break the Mindset that Rep bonuses have to be race specific. Rep bonuses, while giving a nice boost to very few specific situations/roles, take away from the general usage of the ship they're plastered to. There are a multitude of problems associated with a rep bonus ship.
-The Rep bonus is a bonus to a utility module. To utilize the bonus you have to give up a Mid(shield) or low(armor) slot. -The Bonused Rep module is not strong enough alone to be effective. This means you have to dedicate additional slots in the same rack to gain viability. -The additional slots required to gain viability compete with other modules that increase your effectiveness. Armor Rep competes with Weapon/Hull/Prop Upgrades. Shield Boost competes with Propulsion/Tackle/Ewar for slots. Both of them require capacitor upgrades that can compete with either mid, low or rig slots. -The Rep bonus steers your ship's fitting towards a specific tanking type. -The Rep bonus ships are less effective for Logistic supported Fleets. -Because of the previous statement, some races lack viable ship classes to compose a fleet with completely. (i.e. Gallante combat BCs)
To effectively utilize a Rep Bonus a ship must give up too much of it's Utility. Not utilizing the Bonus Wastes basically half the time you spent training your ship skill. Gallente and Minmatar are plagued with these problem ships.
Either spread rep bonuses and resist bonuses around throughout the different race ships or completely replace it with something else. Even from a realism perspective it doesn't make sense. Gallente and Minmatar are gimped in Large fleet battles vs the Caldari and Amarr because Caldari and Amarr have much better Fleet comp ships.
Resist bonuses stand alone perfectly effective. A resist bonus will passively increase local and remote rep effectiveness. You can't unfit a resist bonus. Rep bonuses require supplement. A rep bonus will not affect any other attribute/module. They require additional resist to function properly as well as capacitor modules/rigs. You can unfit a rep bonus and lose 50% of why you trained your ship skill beyond level 1.
There is no Balance for Rep VS Resist. There is no Fix for Rep vs Resist. Change them or spread them out between the races. I personally believe in Rig bonuses instead of module bonuses as i mentioned here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=262880&find=unread Rigs are already very well balanced and functional. They would require seemingly minimal effort to prime for a change like this.
You guys are already in this mindset.
CCP Fozzie wrote: All the command ships have two unbonused highslots that can be used for two gang links, or as general utility highslots. The tension between the two free highslots and the three simultaneous link role bonus is intentional, giving people options to make tradeoffs.
All ships have 2 or 3 rig slots. If you bonus 2 or 3 rig lines (armor/shield/hybrids/missiles/etc) per ship instead of just the specific modules with specific bonuses, then there's your "giving people options to make tradeoffs." |
Shpenat
Pafos Technologies
47
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 08:52:00 -
[188] - Quote
I am bit concerned about the reduction of Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control effectiveness reduction as it is not being projected into the local repper changes. This module actually helped a lot be be cap stable.
Will you consider factoring reduction of cap usage into the modules a well. (I may suggest 0% for small, 5% for medium and 10% for large repair modules capacitor reduction) |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 09:46:00 -
[189] - Quote
Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Paladin
Note that this ship was also designed to use most cap intensive weapons: Tachs. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3218
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 10:46:00 -
[190] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Roime wrote:Sylvanium Orlenard wrote:Gallente ships are tipically close range brawling fits that required MWD to get in range.
Armor Reppers are CAP intensive
MWD Nerfs total cap capacity, thus cap recharge rate.
Gallente ships are the only ships to get an armor repper bonus (Incursus, BC, Command Ships and Hyperion)
Am I the only one that sees the problem? Yes, you are. Rest of us fit cap boosters. So it is fine that the "sustained" tanking system requires 3 modules and 2 rigs to do what Burst tanking can do with 2 modules and 2 rigs?
Yeah, more slots = more tank.
I've been very vocally supporting armour tank fixes, and tbh this buff addresses the main issue, and does it in style. RAH+MAAR fits are going to be viable, and it's fantastic for solo and small gang. Same for shield boosters, this balancing act quite simply provides us with more options.
I'm very satisfied with the HAC 2nd version, CS and link changes and look forward to more good fights.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
|
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
9457
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:08:00 -
[191] - Quote
ofukyes. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Liafcipe9000
Smeghead Empire
9457
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:15:00 -
[192] - Quote
Local armor reps need more rep amount, otherwise +1 internets for Fozzie. You may gain the knowledge, but you will lose your belief, with all its mystery and comfort. If there was proof, absolute and certain, there is an afterlife, why not quit this life, and be done with it? Ponder about these things all your life, and you're a philosopher. Compress these ponderings into a couple of pages, and you'll go mad. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
518
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:20:00 -
[193] - Quote
Overall these are good changes, but I feel a bit meh about including AAR and not ASB. Imo there is too much hype around how ASB are overpowered or anything, while in reality using them is both dangerous (ASB continuing without charges I'm talking to you !) and cargohold omfgwtf consuming. Also, they are only slightly better than shield extenders, for a noticeable difference in CPU/PW usage. G££ <= Me |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:26:00 -
[194] - Quote
Altrue wrote:Overall these are good changes, but I feel a bit meh about including AAR and not ASB. Imo there is too much hype around how ASB are overpowered or anything, while in reality using them is both dangerous (ASB continuing without charges I'm talking to you !) and cargohold omfgwtf consuming. Also, they are only slightly better than shield extenders, for a noticeable difference in CPU/PW usage.
Look at it this way:
- You can only fit one AAR - You can fit as many ASBs as you like |
Perihelion Olenard
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:26:00 -
[195] - Quote
Good to see that active armor tanking may be reliable again, if we don't come across one of the so many people with neuts. I wear my sunglasses at night. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:28:00 -
[196] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:I am concerned about the impact of this change on frigates - buffer-tanking isn't in a good place as is (unless you run with a HG Slave set) and this change will only make matters worse.
Where is the problem that you are trying to fix by giving small armor repairers a 15% boost? Is the dual-rep Incursus, Vengeance, ... too weak as is or are you just trying to make these ships unkillable? Do you want active tank to be the only option on brawling frigates?
edit: Single MSE buffer-tanked frigates are already simply not viable. In a 400mm plated frigate with slave set I can barely outlast dual ASB setups, without slave set I would lose such fights 7 times out of 10. Contrary to public belief the vast majority of FW players does not have Tengu or Legion at hand. Compensating for a nerf to fleet boosters by giving an increase to all active reps will shift the balance of power even further away from buffer setups.
Given that legion links makes armor rep mods = god mode buffing the armor reps just makes eve as bad as ever. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:36:00 -
[197] - Quote
ASBs need to be limited to 1 per ship, a buff for them is insane and stupid.
edit: ok..... I was replying to someone pages back |
IkeIV
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:39:00 -
[198] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Sabrina Scatterbrain wrote:CCP once again fixing what is not broken. How about ya'll devote all resources to recoding the entire game into something other than single threaded hell? You don't want me rewriting the server code.
If that's what it would take hell yeah
It's been said above me few times , anyway WTS Thanatos , you just shipped it to hell it was already half dead but now it's gonna be a ratting ship or a 5 th choice ship |
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
6925
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:46:00 -
[199] - Quote
This change is smart and appropriate. I do wonder why Deadspace/Officer boosters aren't being buffed a little bit though to bring them in line with cost/efficiency? Is there any reason I've overlooked as to why they shouldn't be? |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:51:00 -
[200] - Quote
Buhhdust Princess wrote:This change is smart and appropriate. I do wonder why Deadspace/Officer boosters aren't being buffed a little bit though to bring them in line with cost/efficiency? Is there any reason I've overlooked as to why they shouldn't be?
Gist C/B/A-Types. |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:57:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Won't this boost widen the gap between those who boost with links and those who boost without?
Please show us how many dps will a single sar2 incursus will rep now with this local rep bonus and without no ogbs. Also show cap stability/time.
Then show us how many dps a single sar2 incursus will rep with this new rep bonus with full amarr ogbs. Again also show cap.
I might be wrong but it seems you are still trying to buff ogbs.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
6925
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 11:58:00 -
[202] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Buhhdust Princess wrote:This change is smart and appropriate. I do wonder why Deadspace/Officer boosters aren't being buffed a little bit though to bring them in line with cost/efficiency? Is there any reason I've overlooked as to why they shouldn't be? Gist C/B/A-Types.
So? They are expensive, if you pay the money, you get the increase. This just means that these shield boosters won't be purchased as much. |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
28
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:03:00 -
[203] - Quote
Buhhdust Princess wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Buhhdust Princess wrote:This change is smart and appropriate. I do wonder why Deadspace/Officer boosters aren't being buffed a little bit though to bring them in line with cost/efficiency? Is there any reason I've overlooked as to why they shouldn't be? Gist C/B/A-Types. So? They are expensive, if you pay the money, you get the increase. This just means that these shield boosters won't be purchased as much.
Gist ones will still be good, Pith C and B will be kinda rubbish |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
122
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:10:00 -
[204] - Quote
Sounds good at a quick glance. The different between T2 reps and deadspace is insane at the moment, providing faction correctly sits in the middle (ie faction not overlapping c-type deadspace) then it should be great :)
Looking forward to some numbers. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1064
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:21:00 -
[205] - Quote
Roime wrote:CHRISTMAS CAME EARLY THIS YEAR
**** YEAH
And Sergeant, shield scrubs don't have RAH
Indeed but what's the efficiency of RAH knowing you're taking even more cap and increasing a single resist overtime?
Again it's situational and nice for small roaming gangs etc because chances you have to fight equal numbers over 10ships without logistics are close to null.
The moment you have logistics 1x 1600plate taking no cap and an extra resist plating is superior (resists always superior the moment you have logistics)
So lets put things in order:
400 cap use for T2 rep or Cap use+nanites for meh reps unless OH and still eat cap cap use for RAH cap use for hardeners Edit to add: simple fact of shooting decent dps ammo also takes large chunks of your cap
Your 3 mid slot armor ship better not have to fight equal numbers after 5 unless it's a Proteus brick Legion or CS same race. I'm not saying they will not succeed but just saying it's a silly micromanagement game in the game bringing no real benefit compared to ASB's or SB setups.
When was the last time you saw an armor tanker fitting A-Type medium or large reps? -those are extremely rare compared to A-Type SB pvp setups, and there's a reason for this, SB's are completely OP.
Shields are about boosting and armor overtime I'm ok of that old argument, however when shield ships push the same amounts of EHP better resist profile and reps efficiency it's no match. Look at the amount of shield Vigilants fitted with ASB's and so one for other ships, try Double XL ASB domi some day, it's a pure dps brute with a dirty tank better have some friends to take it out before it cleans the field. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:36:00 -
[206] - Quote
Armor got little buff too, maybe it should be 20% to be even more in line with shield rep. All in all good changes |
Kenneth Skybound
Gallifrey Resources
63
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 12:50:00 -
[207] - Quote
Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Won't this boost widen the gap between those who boost with links and those who boost without? Please show us how many dps will a single sar2 incursus will rep now with this local rep bonus and without no ogbs. Also show cap stability/time. Then show us how many dps a single sar2 incursus will rep with this new rep bonus with full amarr ogbs. Again also show cap. I might be wrong but it seems you are still trying to buff ogbs.
No, you're wrong here. Someone with OGB will still be better than someone without. That's a simple true fact and unavoidable until the end of OGB.
However, that gap is closing. Links are getting nerfs in the tanking department while straight up local repping gets buffs. As Fozzie states, this reduces a fully boosted local tank but increases a solo tank. It also, by way of the link nerfs, reduces logistics and buffer effectiveness on a relative and actual scale. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:31:00 -
[208] - Quote
Kenneth Skybound wrote:Cearain wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Since we are reducing the power level of defensive gang links in Odyssey 1.1, we are planning to take the opportunity to also tweak local repairing some more. We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Won't this boost widen the gap between those who boost with links and those who boost without? Please show us how many dps will a single sar2 incursus will rep now with this local rep bonus and without no ogbs. Also show cap stability/time. Then show us how many dps a single sar2 incursus will rep with this new rep bonus with full amarr ogbs. Again also show cap. I might be wrong but it seems you are still trying to buff ogbs. No, you're wrong here. Someone with OGB will still be better than someone without. That's a simple true fact and unavoidable until the end of OGB. However, that gap is closing. Links are getting nerfs in the tanking department while straight up local repping gets buffs. As Fozzie states, this reduces a fully boosted local tank but increases a solo tank. It also, by way of the link nerfs, reduces logistics and buffer effectiveness on a relative and actual scale.
You are falling for the ccp ogb alt shell game.
Buffing heavy missiles would buff the drake. Why? Because the drake is bonused to heavy missiles.
Gang links give bonus to local reps. Therefore giving bonuses to local reps boosts gang links.
Its time to post the numbers. This like every boost to active tanking is a ninja boost to ogb alts.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 13:35:00 -
[209] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:I am concerned about the impact of this change on frigates - buffer-tanking isn't in a good place as is (unless you run with a HG Slave set) and this change will only make matters worse.
Where is the problem that you are trying to fix by giving small armor repairers a 15% boost? Is the dual-rep Incursus, Vengeance, ... too weak as is or are you just trying to make these ships unkillable? Do you want active tank to be the only option on brawling frigates?
edit: Single MSE buffer-tanked frigates are already simply not viable. In a 400mm plated frigate with slave set I can barely outlast dual ASB setups, without slave set I would lose such fights 7 times out of 10. Contrary to public belief the vast majority of FW players does not have Tengu or Legion at hand. Compensating for a nerf to fleet boosters by giving an increase to all active reps will shift the balance of power even further away from buffer setups. Go out and actually try frigate pvp - the majority of enemies will already be active tanked and most of the rest run entirely tankless setups (kiting destroyers, dampening condors, ...). Try flying a buffer-tanked frigate without 3b in implants and report the results, there's a reason why almost nobody is flying buffer tank as is.
If you had to buy a second account to use slaves, ccp would care about your post. But active tanks are the ones that work well with the ogb alts so they will get the boosts. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Luc Chastot
Daktaklakpak.
436
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:04:00 -
[210] - Quote
All repair modules should be balanced individually; also, not only should their repair amount be changed, but also any other stat that is relevant to keep a distinct flavor between shields and armor.
Edit: I would rather getting a full active tank rebalance one or two months from now, even as the sole feature of a new point release. Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
|
Trifle Donier
Sham Rocks Incorporated
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:24:00 -
[211] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Gang links give bonus to local reps. Therefore giving bonuses to local reps boosts gang links.
Its time to post the numbers. This like every boost to active tanking is a ninja boost to ogb alts.
Not if you nerf said links at the same time as you boost local reps. Hint: read the links thread.
|
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:41:00 -
[212] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% These numbers should have been:
Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10% That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start.
The AAR did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing TEs did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing resist bonuses did not fix armor tanking. The ASB made active armor suck even harder next to active shields. You have wasted months on all these gimmicks and silly, backhanded, irrelevant tweaks. But you still haven't actually done anything to make active armor tanking viable next to active shield tanking.
It's time to stop playing games and get back to basics: Do the hard work of rebalancing the core, fundamental mechanics of armor and shield active tanking.
|
Ju0ZaS
Mentally Assured Destruction
9
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:45:00 -
[213] - Quote
IMO you should give a 5% increase in rep and boost amounts for the deadspace mods then. |
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec Invisible Exchequer
205
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 14:46:00 -
[214] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:blarggg wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed. Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math) Not as part of this change no.
So basically you guys are balancing the onboard reps but not the remotes and not the drones?
Is that not a bit stupid? Wont that just make your future balance issues that much more complicated?
Also what is the philosophy about not boosting some meta levels? It seems extremely stupid to mess up values of meta by some artificial usability and not by fixing the drop rates?
Ideally theses things should be considered in a much more holistic approach, so for example overheating tollerance is high on low meta, but destruction chance is also high, and vice versa on higher meta. Then tweak the drop rates and consider using a global counting serverside and increase drop chance when universal population drops below certain thresholds.
When you change "nerf" bonuses it really just mess up the whole intuitive aspect of guessing values and usability..
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:01:00 -
[215] - Quote
Caleb Ayrania wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:blarggg wrote:Caleb Ayrania wrote:Will this apply to repair drones also? (Would be nice with maybe a bit more than 15% on drones imho)
Is it going to be on all meta levels, and could some minor gradient balance be considered?
I didn't see any responses to this guys drone question so i figured i quote to make it get noticed. Will drones get +15% repair amount? (or +22.137% based on arbitrary math) Not as part of this change no. So basically you guys are balancing the onboard reps but not the remotes and not the drones? Is that not a bit stupid? Wont that just make your future balance issues that much more complicated? Also what is the philosophy about not boosting some meta levels? It seems extremely stupid to mess up values of meta by some artificial usability and not by fixing the drop rates? Ideally theses things should be considered in a much more holistic approach, so for example overheating tollerance is high on low meta, but destruction chance is also high, and vice versa on higher meta. Then tweak the drop rates and consider using a global counting serverside and increase drop chance when universal population drops below certain thresholds. When you change "nerf" bonuses it really just mess up the whole intuitive aspect of guessing values and usability..
The idea behind boosting the local active tank was to mitigate the nerf to ogbs. If drones got a boost from ogbs the would have been buffed too. They wanted to make sure ogb still equals god mode.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:03:00 -
[216] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% These numbers should have been: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10% That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start.
small/medium active armor repairers are already more efficient than small/medium shield boosters, why would they make it MORE out-of-whack? |
Boris Amarr
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:18:00 -
[217] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% These numbers should have been: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10% That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start. The AAR did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing TEs did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing resist bonuses did not fix armor tanking. The ASB made active armor suck even harder next to active shields. You have wasted months on all these gimmicks and silly, backhanded, irrelevant tweaks. But you still haven't actually done anything to make active armor tanking viable next to active shield tanking. It's time to stop playing games and get back to basics: Do the hard work of rebalancing the core, fundamental mechanics of armor and shield active tanking. +1 |
Lucretia DeWinter
Star Frontiers Dirt Nap Squad.
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 15:50:00 -
[218] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.
Keep it as is and drop the fitting reqs for the Pith C-Type by 7.5-10% and a small boost to the C-Type from 264 up to 275 keeps the C-Type about as much an improvement as current without overpowering or getting too close to the B-Types. The Gists still have their enormous Cap Usage advantage, so should be fine.
Otherwise, I feel the DG/CN versions will lose out too much on T2/Deadspace and I'd be more concerned about crashing the LP store item's value and efficiency than a rare drop version. Plus Republic and Domination versions would be much stronger with a buff to rep amount in addition to their cap benefits.
/IMO |
KiithSoban
Big Johnson's PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
21
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:00:00 -
[219] - Quote
Specific ships that i think would become unbalanced b/c of this change:
incursus*, hawk, merlin, harpy
I don't see much issue at the destroyer, cruiser, BC, or BS level though.
As for caps, who is to say? It sure would be a lot easier to run c5/c6 WH sites. Ouch. Don't even think about breaking a carrier anymore without a butt load of subcaps. Neuts even more now than ever seem to be the way to handle that.
Seems ok to me, but I'm a little worried about the incursus and how this would change things on the frigate level. Do you mean to let some frigs parma tank (cap stable) a kyting frig of the same isk cost? Right now, in a rail atron, it is difficult as is to break an incursus with 114 dps. Forget about the hawk and harpy. The merlin and punisher would also be in the same realm, but not quite as bad.
|
Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
407
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:33:00 -
[220] - Quote
This change is AMAZING! A wish come true for small and microgang (even solo) PvP. PvE fits will not have to have some super bling to actually effectively tank a L4 in a sub-battleship class ship! |
|
Varun Arthie
Real Simple Construction The Citadel Consortium
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:33:00 -
[221] - Quote
Why not change the Armour reps to be at the start of the cycle and not at the end? A lot of players would be happy by a change like that.
The amount of capacitor Armour rep modules use also needs a bit of tweaking too.
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:40:00 -
[222] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:small/medium active armor repairers are already more efficient than small/medium shield boosters, why would they make it MORE out-of-whack?
For T2 and faction modules, two reppers have almost exactly the same rep:cap as a shield booster and an SBA. They also have extremely similar rep/boost per second. The shield modules have the advantage of boosting immediately and a shorter cycle time, while the armor modules have the advantage of much easier fitting stats and the fact that you can fit them singly and still have it be good individually.
For deadspace modules, this balance is utterly destroyed. The best deadspace armor reppers are a 30% (medium) to 40% (large) increase in rep:cap from faction armor reppers. The best deadspace shield booster plus best deadspace SBA results in a 218% (medium) to 298% (XL) increase in boost:cap from faction shield boosters. A T2 XLSB and T2 SBA is almost identical in effectiveness to two Large Armor Repairer IIs, but a Gist-X XLSB and a Ptih-X SBA boosts 2.12 times as effectively as two Centus-X Large Armor Repairers. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1042
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:45:00 -
[223] - Quote
Trifle Donier wrote:Cearain wrote:Gang links give bonus to local reps. Therefore giving bonuses to local reps boosts gang links.
Its time to post the numbers. This like every boost to active tanking is a ninja boost to ogb alts. Not if you nerf said links at the same time as you boost local reps. Hint: read the links thread.
You clearly don't understand the shell game being played.
This post dev post goes with the changes to ganglinks. The reason it goes together is because it mitigates the nerf to ogbs.
Its like they nerf the drake by giving it a decrease in range on missiles but then buff the heavy missile and heavy assault missile damage. End result is it looks like a real nerf to the drake but at best its very minor indeed.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
311
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:52:00 -
[224] - Quote
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? |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:55:00 -
[225] - Quote
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 |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1042
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 16:59:00 -
[226] - Quote
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
This but not just rep speed. Assume full ogb bonuses. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:00:00 -
[227] - Quote
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. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
306
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:08:00 -
[228] - Quote
I hope there is going to be a module tiercide or rebalance soon then.
I find it really annoying that faction and deadspace modules are all over the place with regards to fitting/effectiveness.
I hate the way some modules are easier to fit and have the best stats. I would far prefer:
One type easy to fit
One type excellent performance
One type an all rounder but not easy to fit and not best performance |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:13:00 -
[229] - 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.
T2 X-Large w/ T2 shield boost amp vs T2 LAR
Fight!
Not to even mention you can fit X-L booster to cruisers... |
Leskit
The Night Wardens Viro Mors Non Est
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:15:00 -
[230] - Quote
Cearain 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 This but not just rep speed. Assume full ogb bonuses. the reason i left resists off was more for consistency-the resists varying by ship hull will change the amount, but yeah, it would be nice to have numbers for all of it. |
|
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:16:00 -
[231] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote: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. T2 X-Large w/ T2 shield boost amp vs T2 LAR Fight! Not to even mention you can fit X-L booster to cruisers...
Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again? |
Tsubutai
Drifting Falling
246
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:16:00 -
[232] - Quote
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. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:22:00 -
[233] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again?
T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:35:00 -
[234] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Xequecal wrote:Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again? T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger
Ok, first of all, you're comparing a ship with a boosting bonus to a ship without a rep or resist bonus, which is highly dishonest to begin with.
Second, any viable XLSB Cyclone fit has no SBA, because the first Invuln II is better than an SBA. It's pretty comparable to say a triple rep Myrmidon, due to the much lower fitting on the medium reps. XLSB cyclone will need CPU fitting mods to fit a full rack of launchers and BCSes for sure. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1191
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:36:00 -
[235] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:I hope there is going to be a module tiercide or rebalance soon then.
I find it really annoying that faction and deadspace modules are all over the place with regards to fitting/effectiveness.
I hate the way some modules are easier to fit and have the best stats. I would far prefer:
One type easy to fit
One type excellent performance
One type an all rounder but not easy to fit and not best performance
indeed i am hopping for something akin to guns in dust 514... where each one is good in its own reguard and there is not just one best. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:40:00 -
[236] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Xequecal wrote:Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again? T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger Ok, first of all, you're comparing a ship with a boosting bonus to a ship without a rep or resist bonus, which is highly dishonest to begin with. Second, any viable XLSB Cyclone fit has no SBA, because the first Invuln II is better than an SBA. It's pretty comparable to say a triple rep Myrmidon, due to the much lower fitting on the medium reps. XLSB cyclone will need CPU fitting mods to fit a full rack of launchers and BCSes for sure.
Exactly the point. You need 3 repairers + rep bonus to match Cyclones repping power with only one shield booster. |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:41:00 -
[237] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Xequecal wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:Xequecal wrote:Yes. comparing two modules to one module is extremely honest. I'm floored by your amazing argument. Why don't you ready my previous two posts and try again? T2 X-L booster Cyclone vs T2 LAR Harbinger Ok, first of all, you're comparing a ship with a boosting bonus to a ship without a rep or resist bonus, which is highly dishonest to begin with. Second, any viable XLSB Cyclone fit has no SBA, because the first Invuln II is better than an SBA. It's pretty comparable to say a triple rep Myrmidon, due to the much lower fitting on the medium reps. XLSB cyclone will need CPU fitting mods to fit a full rack of launchers and BCSes for sure. Exactly the point. You need 3 repaires + rep bonus to match Cyclones repping power with only one shield booster.
The cyclone needs fitting mods to make an XLSB work, the Myrmidon doesn't need them for its rep fit. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1043
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:43:00 -
[238] - Quote
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.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
64
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 17:49:00 -
[239] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:The cyclone needs fitting mods to make an XLSB work, the Myrmidon doesn't need them for its rep fit.
You need 3% PG implant to fit those repairers. |
Sigras
Conglomo
479
|
Posted - 2013.08.02 18:05:00 -
[240] - Quote
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 |
|
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... |
|
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:45:00 -
[271] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: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
You can't be serious!! In times when you see brutix, harbinger and others armor ships shield tanked, you want to buff shield reps even more? Everything is nowdays shield tanked and they need to change that. Local armor reps need big buff. Shield on the other hand can easily put over sized modules, not to mention how deadspace items are op in that department. Plain 10% buff would also be too much and dev gave it 15. It's too much
|
Savira Terrant
EVE Corporation 1212120482 Unchained.
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 09:53:00 -
[272] - Quote
Hey Fozzy, can you please expain why you would exclude faction (maybe) and deadspace boosters from the 15% buff? Do you think they are overpowered for their price at the moment (something also to be considered, no?)? I thought this buff had the specific objective of buffing ships without command bonus, while nerfing ships with the bonus to make the use command ships less overpowering.
Comparing armor and shield tanks with deadspace fittings for PVE (sorry I would and should not know about PVP with such pricey modules) they performed quite similar in actual "combat", while specific armor ships performed even better than shield fits (due to better possibilities of resistence modules eg. "passive invuls" and the new reactive armor hardener. (All ships were fitted to have balanced resists with 600 defense omni, while trying to get as much cap as possible before trying them ingame.)
The problem with the shield fits was not the sheer amount of boost that can actually be higher than armor, but it was impossible to get them capstabe (I had to decide between less boost and capstable or more rep an not capstable, while the armor reps had hit the sweet spot of rep per cap ratio). There are no shield boosters that hit this sweetspot.
So since you seem to want to streamline active tanking between armor and shield tanking can you plase either introduce passive invuls or reduce the cap usage of deadspace shield boosters?
. |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
318
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 10:49:00 -
[273] - Quote
Sigras wrote: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.
Michael J Caboose, please go watch the vids and get some education. Those are indeed the remote repping Carriers I was talking about. With so many factors changing like T3 boosts, Command ships and the actual boosts themselves, it remains to be seen the impact of an across the board active repping change. I take on board you've done some maths of T3 boosting etc, but have you considered the impact of combat boosters, implants and all the other stuff people fit and use to gain an edge?
This is my whole point - They are changing so many things at once it is much more likely a few ships and specific fits will get rather screwed up and out of whack in terms of balance. I agree with most of the boosting changes especially the nerf of OG T3 boosters - and it is probably true active repping needs help to make them even more of a competitive option, but one step at a time makes more sense to me. That is all I came here to say and got unnecessarily trolled for it.
As a member of Gallente militia we fairly often fly active armour repped ships probably more so than almost anywhere else in game, so I guess I could have a blindspot to that in terms of thinking it is more common, but in my experience it is still way way more common to see active armour repping ships than active shield boosting ships. It'd be interesting to hear from Amarr FW pilots as I guess they are vs minnie ships more often and might see more shield booster, but I doubt that.
Hyperions, brutixes, incursus are all fairly common in our area of lowsec - properly fit they are all very competitive in their roles and one of my serious concerns you overlook is the incursus - A large amount of FW pvp is frigate pvp, which has been at a fairly good state of balance recently (relatively).
As I said before, repping changes to the Incursus (which at one point was totally broken in terms of being overpowered with AAR) just means it potentially could throw it out of whack again - Incursus becomes the new dramiel and a frigate unbreakable by almost every other frigate returns as it is the easy latest i-win option - No thanks! But yeah you probably don't care about that.
Anyway I'm out of this thread - too many trolls to bother posting more feedback etc. I'll wait until it hits the servers before giving more feedback opinions. Cheers. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:08:00 -
[274] - Quote
raawe wrote:Liang Nuren wrote: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 You can't be serious!! In times when you see brutix, harbinger and others armor ships shield tanked, you want to buff shield reps even more? Everything is nowdays shield tanked and they need to change that. Local armor reps need big buff. Shield on the other hand can easily put over sized modules, not to mention how deadspace items are op in that department. Plain 10% buff would also be too much and dev gave it 15. It's too much
You dont active shield tank any of these ships in pvp, pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues, |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1068
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:27:00 -
[275] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:You dont active shield tank any of these ships in pvp, pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues,
Sry to disagree with you but yes you do. We're talking here about ships and pvp situations out of fleet engagements but yes they do shield fit and rather good, so good they can beat up the same ship armor fitted twice.
Shield Brutix over Armor Brutix? -all day, ASB fit it is a pwnmobile
Shield Mega/Talos/Vigilant/Harby/Deimost (this one not only gets huge dps increase but seems it dies slower shield fitted) and known ishtar, just for the sake of some examples of armor ships already being exponentially better shield fitted and specially with links/combat boosters, far better than armor fitted all time.
If those are better shield fitted for solo small gang work it's certainly not because armor mods are too good well balanced vs shield mods or because players are all bad at fittings but rather the other way around.
The real solution is not half bad balances, take of mid slots, give badly balanced modules vs overpowered modules. Don't tell me CCP can't recode ASBs so they now consume cap also, of course they can but they just don't want it, that simple.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
125
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 12:53:00 -
[276] - Quote
That bull, you dont active fit any of those. Asb fits on them are usually lolfits and nothing more. And if you truely think current asbs are op then you havnt pvped in half a year or so. |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1047
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 15:41:00 -
[277] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote: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?
They have been saying that for over a year. Yet they never say exactly who this person/team is. Perhaps it's time this as yet unnamed person communicates with the players.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cyaron wars
SkREW CREW Local Down
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 16:26:00 -
[278] - Quote
I am sure you should allow fitting 2 AARs or deny fitting 2 ASBs. Tanking capabilities between shield and armor have enormous difference. |
maCH'EttE
Mafia Redux Phobia.
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 18:17:00 -
[279] - 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.
Shield reps need a boost? You must be very slow, or maybe your mommy dropped you on your head. Where are you pvping where armor reps are more resilient than shield reps, please tell me. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
313
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 19:42:00 -
[280] - Quote
Is it just me, or does this Vyktor guy's posts seem to be horrible troll? |
|
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:48:00 -
[281] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Is it just me, or does this Vyktor guy's posts seem to be horrible troll?
got the same problem with Poetic Stanziel, you never know if you either mistunderstood these people or what not
Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 20:56:00 -
[282] - Quote
Quote:We will be boosting the rep amount of most local repair modules, such that someone with gang links after the patch will still rep less, but someone without gang links will rep more than they do now.
Dropped my alt boosters long time ago CCP, I like to play it rough now in... Star Trek Online Still nice of you to be a little considerate of customers who spend a lot of skill training time (and plex) into these maxed out alts. Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 21:35:00 -
[283] - Quote
I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P |
Shinzhi Xadi
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:54:00 -
[284] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P
Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship.. |
Crown Heights
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.03 23:54:00 -
[285] - Quote
so many changes its hard to keep up with what to qq about.
i want to qq thats for sure.
When something is OP i dont want to do it. I want to get my ass kicked by it and qq about it.
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
314
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 00:13:00 -
[286] - Quote
Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship..
Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
57
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 05:11:00 -
[287] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote: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) Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT. This is only offset by a longer repair time. And even including that, armor repairers do their job more efficiently than shield boosters. This coupled with stronger base resistances across the board makes for a better active tank. While it may anger some people that they have to activate their repairers earlier since the repair is at the end of the cycle, armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets. Yes you sacrifice agility when armor fitted but that's the trade-off. It's one if the few things shields are better at. Another trade-off is damage modules vs utility slots. Both types of tank will lose some hp/resists if they try to fit the opposing one. Each one has its upsides and downsides but neither is really better than the other at too many things. It's all about the choices you make when you choose what to fly and how to fit it. |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
153
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:03:00 -
[288] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:[quote=Xequecal][quote=Pelea Ming]stuff. more stuff armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat, that's why it's the most common choice for brawling fleets. extra stuff
No, ASBs are always better for just about any fight not involving remote reps, that's why they've been very deliberately missed from these increases. Hopefully this will give armour reps a greater degree of parity, though with the 1 per ship limit on AARs and ASBs having no such exclusion I expect a considerable difference in efficacy to continue. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1425
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 08:14:00 -
[289] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Well, armor has better repair to capacitor use than shields along with larger repair amount BY A LOT.
Sorry this is only true for burst tanking.
Rowells wrote:Armor tanking is always better for longer more drawn out combat. Shield tanking is better for sustained combat not armor, with passive regeneration, faster reps and over time a lower capacitor usage shield tanking wins.
Shield Booster 1 X-Large Shield Booster II 1 Shield Boost Amplifier II 1 Core Defense Operational Solidifier I 1 Core Defense Operational Safeguard I Will rep 816HP in 4.25s for 342GJ
Armor Repair 2 Large Armor Repairer II 1 Nanobot Accelerator 1 Auxiliary Nano Pump Will rep 1840HP in 9.5625s for 800GJ
With this it takes 153 seconds for the cycles to equal out. 2 min 33 sec
Shield tanking HP boosted 29,376 Cap Usage 12,312GJ Number of cycles 36
Armor tanking HP repped 29,440 Cap usage 12,800 Number of cycles 16 Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
poepstreep66
Heralds of Vengeance The Nightingales of Hades
20
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 10:22:00 -
[290] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:(except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) So instead of actually addressing the imbalance in progression of power for deadspace/officer shield boosters on a more detailed levels you've just decided to not add a blanket buff you're giving to the other shield boosters? While I agree with the motive, the actions just seem so half assed... I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just that there have been multiple threads over the years in which the specific imbalances of deadspace/officer shield booster have already been outlined perfectly for you and your balance minions. I find it highly unlikely you will be addressing the nonsensicalness of these values once your proposed changes hit the server, this I find worrisome. Finally someone who is getting the picture! |
|
Cambarus
Veni Vidi Vaselini
328
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 13:50:00 -
[291] - Quote
Sigras wrote: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 Nopenopenopenope.jpg
There needs to be more active tanking not affected by neuts, not less. Neuts are far too ubiquitous as it stands, the benefits are just too huge not to slap a neut into every spare high on damn near every ship. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
315
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 14:11:00 -
[292] - Quote
I don't think that AAR's should use no cap... but I think having them use less cap would be a good idea. |
Pheadra Aurilen
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 17:59:00 -
[293] - Quote
[quote=CCP Fozzie
You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.[/quote]
I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2.
The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies.
However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced.
IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:45:00 -
[294] - Quote
monkfish1234 wrote:this almost sounds like your encouraging something other than buffer and logis........
possibly the best change in the last 4 years.
I agree. This will make kitchen fleet scramble fleets much better for introducing noobs to PvP. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
316
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 18:57:00 -
[295] - Quote
Pheadra Aurilen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.
I'm not sure that this would be the right move. Excluding DG/CN boosters from the buff would actually make them less Cap efficient than T2 or Meta 4 boosters and would mean that their Cap efficiency was only fractionally above Meta 3. Similarly, excluding large and X-large Pith boosters means that the C-Type large or X-large boosters would be less cap efficient than T2. The reason for this is that large and X-large Pith boosters aren't actually out of step with armour reppers, but actually follow the same pattern of increasing the boost amount by 10% of the boost provided by the equivalent faction booster on each step (Faction to C-Type to B-Type to A-Type) for the same activation cost. The only significant difference being the existence of an X-Type booster for each size for which there is no armour equivalent. Clearly, excluding any part of this chain from a 15% increase in boost amount is going to create some odd overlaps and inconsistencies. However, the same is not true for small and medium Pith boosters or for any size of Gist booster. For these the gap between the faction boosters and deadspace boosters is huge. For example, small and medium C-Type Pith boosters give almost twice the boost of DG/CN for the same activation cost (albeit with a slightly longer cycle time) and for Gist C-Type the activation cost is significant reduced (up to 33%) whilst the boost amount increases (11%-85%!) compared to the equivalent Domi/RF modules. These are clearly unbalanced. IMO the correct course of action would therefor be to include faction, large and X-large Pith boosters in the 15% increase to boost amount, but exclude small and medium Pith and all Gist boosters. Ideally, I would also completely overhaul to Gist and small and medium Pith boosters to bring them in line with other local reppers. However, I accept that with so much isk invested in these modules it will be a thankless task and, perhaps, too much to expect on this occasion. Or you could reduce the cap draw abit on the large & x-large pith boosters. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:39:00 -
[296] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:I don't think that AAR's should use no cap... but I think having them use less cap would be a good idea.
AAR's have so much potential but 15% HP increase isn't going to fix them..
- nanite skills affecting AAR's - reduced cap need - remove limit of 1 AAR per ship - reduce cycle time so reps are frequent - change reload time either reduce to 15-20 secs or use an inject system - when nanite runs out AAR reps at 75% until more nanite paste is injected which takes 15-20 secs whilst still repping at 75% of normal and then can rep at usual nanite paste rate.
This promotes armour repping as more continuous but repping less than shield boosters Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:56:00 -
[297] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:Sweet, my archon can now tank 10 supers with links, drugs, rep rigs and implants. (We already have 2 pimp fit archons that can tank 3 nyxes for ~10 minutes).
Perhaps you should stop overlooking the carriers when you buff the reps because all the changes are overdoing it just a little.
The issue comes from the +resist everyone says for ages is completely op. Take those 4% per lvl away, problem solved. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 19:59:00 -
[298] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship.. Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second.
And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.
It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?
Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
331
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:11:00 -
[299] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.
It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?
Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm
Except you failed in reading comprehension. The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does. Before taking into account any sig/angular velocity mitigation, i.e. Sit both of them completely still inside frig optimal also sitting still and the T3 Reps more. Meaning it tanks dramatically more once you add in those factors. Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is? |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
174
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:39:00 -
[300] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:pve obviously doesnt matter in any balancing issues,
I could swear some of the dev types have posted that they can, do, and need to balance things around PvE as well as PvP. |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1072
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 21:48:00 -
[301] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is?
Fly them all so no, don't understand or see a problem with for 2 reasons:
I don't use OGB while flying solo, implants combat boosters and whatnot 1v1 (+15) elite pvp.
When I fit an L A-type +SBA on loki I can't avoid trying to fit a large armor rep on my Proteus but I can't no matter what I do but then without much effort I can also fit an X-type on my loki but still no large armor rep on my Proteus while having a greater buffer can't tank the same number of ships for as long and still survive unless I dishonor gtfo (strategic retreat ). Then I start tweaking a bit sleipnir fits and can safely tell you the problem doesn't come from the T3 rep sub or what the heck people complain about, ever tried to tank 15 arty Cyna gang with an Astarte and survive? -you can't but I can and did it often with a double xl-asb sleipnir.
The only problem comes from the OP links boosts+completely out of whack shield dead space modules. You guys don't want to admit it, don't want your solo (+alts) tralala pvp taken away which I can understand despite most arguments having no sense but in very specific situations that AREN'T relevant to any pvp balance. This game is an MMO, solo pvp/ships balance is not only irrelevant but stupid, talk about balance when difference in between tanking mods and their dedicated modules are so different and so badly balanced need some interest for the greater good and not only personal tr+ál+ál+á.
Now next time you want to argue about T3's rep openness remember about leave fleet not take drugs not fit pirate/named/fitting/navigation implants, then we might actually be able to discuss, until then I can't avoid laughing hard reading this thread and see my shield pvp setups becoming even more OP then they were before. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
316
|
Posted - 2013.08.04 22:08:00 -
[302] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Shinzhi Xadi wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:I still find it hilarious I can put a stronger active tank on a Legion then I can on an Abaddon :P Old Tech 1 ship, vs ultra modern Tech 3 ship.. Still a Cruiser vs a Battleship. Kind of obscene that it overall takes less incoming damage (sig rad / speed tank) yet can also be fitted out to rep more armor per second. And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it. It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite? Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm The frigate isn't out repping a larger hull though, the legion is ... by 2 size categories, in fact. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3227
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 07:54:00 -
[303] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.
It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?
Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm
Except you failed in reading comprehension. The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does. Before taking into account any sig/angular velocity mitigation, i.e. Sit both of them completely still inside frig optimal also sitting still and the T3 Reps more. Meaning it tanks dramatically more once you add in those factors. Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is?
Have you noticed that the Legion, like all T3s, have the optional subsystem giving bonuses to rep amount?
Compared to a battleship with rep local tank bonuses, T3s produce less raw reps. (Not saying that they'd actually tank less)
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Syzygium
Friends Of Harassment
36
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 08:03:00 -
[304] - Quote
Instead of just "tweaking" some modules you should take the time and do a complete rebalance over the meta-range.
It makes little sense to change a few modules and noticing afterwards that they are now better than some of the higher meta-versions, then again fixing these and so on... do a clear rework from tech1 over tech2, faction, deadspace and officer-variants, each version a bit better than the lower one, giving the player the option to invest lots of money for slightly better performance results.
always remember: bandaid solutions are bad by design and will fire back at some point sooner or later. if you do something, do it right. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
753
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 09:40:00 -
[305] - 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. |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 10:57:00 -
[306] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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.
Why Incursus pilot is using ASB? |
Creon Ra
EntroPrelatial Industria Here Be Dragons
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:19:00 -
[307] - Quote
Like the changes besides the lack of love for bling modules :P - will be interesting to see how the faction ones will work compared to their way more expensive bros with that kind of 15% boost.
Thx for the armor love :) |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:55:00 -
[308] - Quote
SImply why?
Is this shift from warfare ganglinks to local powered repping an attempt to reduce the reasons for any but the small fleets?
On the other hand this increase in repping power can only extend the length of small fights in many case to ridiculous lengths. Perhaps the idea is to make 1v1 and even 1v2 kills dififcult or give time for a small fight to grow to a big fight even if buddies are in another system. So between repping and ganglinks it look like CCP heavily favors initial fleet sizes of 3-7 ships but would like to see fights undergo accretion into chaotic unguided blob battles from nothing if that small gang scenario doesn't happen.
In any case this idea threatens a long tradition of quick small scale PVP combat and getting gone before buddies for several jumps away can get there.
And while very small increases (3-4%) to armor repping might be acceptable if unneeded -- any increase in shield repping is unforgivable. Shield repping already has passive repping. Plus when shields are gone there is still armor left as a huge safety buffer. Just too much advantage to add more to shield tanks.
All and all this CCP move is just confusing. |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 11:58:00 -
[309] - Quote
A very much needed boost to solo and small gang pvp. Its good to see some attention ehre as active reps have long been fairly worthless. It should also help to stop the un-balancing issue of people shield fitting armour ships becuase active armour tanks are so bad.
Originally even with the hull bonus, the only effective active armor tank for the myrm was to triple rep it, leaving pretty poor dps. Whereas an ASB fit myrm still tanks more, has tackle, and does way more dps.
Hoping this boost will change that. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:03:00 -
[310] - Quote
There seems to be a concentration on fixing armor tanking which I don't see the need for. All the fleet doctrines of my alliance, excluding roaming short range naga's are armor doctrines. In the recent Fountain war the only shield doctrine being used was Caracals.
In recent months you have:
- nerfed the shield compensation skills because there are no fleet/pvp quality passive shield hardners;
- introduced a skill, armor honeycombing, to mitigation the speed penalty of plates; and
- introduced a new reactive hardner module and a skill to improve its performance, armor resistance phasing.
Could you throw shield tanking fits a few bones too:
- remove the penalty to capacitor power relays that applies to shield boosting - that nerf was introduced in the dim and distant past to address problems I don't see now - all it does is ensure that nobody contemplates shield boosting except for pve or with an ancillary shield booster;
- introduced a skill, shield camouflage , to mitigation the signature radius bonus of shield extenders (love how you say you are improving the Eagle by reducing its signature radius when you know that the first thing getting fitted to it is a shield extender); and
- introduced a new passive shield hardner module which acts as a reactive hardener and a skill to improve its performance, shield resistance phasing.
|
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:03:00 -
[311] - Quote
Nova Satar wrote:A very much needed boost to solo and small gang pvp. Its good to see some attention ehre as active reps have long been fairly worthless. It should also help to stop the un-balancing issue of people shield fitting armour ships becuase active armour tanks are so bad.
Originally even with the hull bonus, the only effective active armor tank for the myrm was to triple rep it, leaving pretty poor dps. Whereas an ASB fit myrm still tanks more, has tackle, and does way more dps.
Hoping this boost will change that.
People keep telling me that faction and officer resists were the answer not triple reps :)
|
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:17:00 -
[312] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: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. Why Incursus pilot is using ASB?
You didn't understood what she said. Band Aids break, period. ASB was an example, is not applicable to Incursus.
With some exceptions. almost nobody uses regular shield boosters anymore because of ASB (my experience is only in Frigs). The problem is not the Armor repairer buff itself, I think it's a needed buff at least to the small armor reps, the problem is the fact that there are some ships that clearly do NOT need that buff, and here is where enters the Incursus, blasters and rails (damn rails).
And of course you will always have people saying that balance 1vs1 do not matter in a mmo, that it is perfectly fine that some ships stomp the others within the same class, that they are objective and only think in the greater good of the game, when the truth is that they are simply trying to pull things the way they prefer for the ships and weapon systems they like. We all do it in one way or the other, even if the only thing we want is something close to *balance* (utopia). Damn, I do it for my Rifters. :-) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1079
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:43:00 -
[313] - Quote
Roime wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
And a Daredevil with single AAR decent prop mod and some thinking can tank an entire fleet of battleships shooting at it.
It's unfair, a frigate should not be able to tank or rep that much neither, amirite?
Edit: just in case you haven't noticed this sort of intelligent thinking is about the same level than the T3/BS comment, /sarcasm
Except you failed in reading comprehension. The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does. Before taking into account any sig/angular velocity mitigation, i.e. Sit both of them completely still inside frig optimal also sitting still and the T3 Reps more. Meaning it tanks dramatically more once you add in those factors. Now do you understand what the complaint on T3's rep power is? Have you noticed that the Legion, like all T3s, have the optional subsystem giving bonuses to rep amount? Compared to a battleship with rep local tank bonuses, T3s produce less raw reps. (Not saying that they'd actually tank less)
I did for a long time and that's why I laugh anyway reading these guys putting in the same sentence the "OP T3's" with "supercarrier tanks" "doomsday dps" "triage super self reps" etc. Myths, because they can't do all of it at the same time, there's always a trade off and not a small one opening a huge defensive hole no one or very little cares to take the time to understand how to break or counter, OGBs just make them out of whack but at the very beginning it's not really the ship but some stupid mechanics that need to go away.
Let me just copy pasta again this guy comment : "The T3 has more RAW rep than the BS does."
Well maybe in his other game I don't know which one because in Eve T3's don't have a self build local rep bonus but it's a subsystem trading other stats which usually is buffer and less lows/mids. Now without even going any further than the hated HAMgu while the ridiculous mount of reps from sub bonus on top of T2 SBA+dead space A-type med SB+combat booster+links+implants, I can simply take a Maelstrom for the same example and push even greater stupid numbers. Yet do you see people complaining about those? -no because T3 with all those funky solo I win buttons is the best option overall over a fat slow ass battleship
How is this even possible in the first place? -oversize shield modules for "x" hull, in armor you simply can't -HPS/cap efficiency of dead space SBs (not even accounting officer SBs or SBAs) being in between 250% better (without links) to 900% when you factor all possible improvement methods/tools.
So if we want to talk about T3's tank/dps ability we need to do it right with a rep bonus battleship and we need to do it in between armor T3vsarmor BS then shield T3vs shield BS but try to compare both its like searching to get aids or cancer, it's just impossible because of so much illogical difference in HPS/cap between same size/meta armor reps vs shield reps.
No way in hell I get fingers in the nose over 5K local reps per 5s cycle with armor reps and certainly not at cruiser/bc size, yet this is possible with shields (wihtout OGB or whatsoever) while still accumulating as good if not bigger buffer than armor ones cap immunity good dps output and a rather good maneuverability for ships supposed to be thick tanks unsustainable but bursting huge chunks of it.
Yet why you are able to push 200k EHP on Tengus with blaster range dps? -is it the ship it self the problem or the silliness of shield mods, oversize prop mods etc?
The whole mechanics seem ok but it's modules that are way way left out of balance hammer for whatever unexplainable reason, yet numbers are there and easy to figure out as long as you can fly and use them all in different pvp situations.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1079
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 12:55:00 -
[314] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote: introduced a new passive shield hardner module which acts as a reactive hardener and a skill to improve its performance, shield resistance phasing.[/list] The moment it takes as much cap per activation as armor this would be cool for my shield ships but knowing CCP this could very well end with a 15CPU 1pg module all passive resist increase with co cap use.
Well I would use it for sure
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3228
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 14:11:00 -
[315] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: The whole mechanics seem ok but it's modules that are way way left out of balance hammer for whatever unexplainable reason, yet numbers are there and easy to figure out as long as you can fly and use them all in different pvp situations.
EVE playerbase in essence is a super-efficient spaceship optimization instrument. There's a ton of really smart people equipped with established and custom tools constantly pushing the envelope of what can be done with the myriad of toys CCP throws us, then combine this with a rapid testing environment full of unrelated operators flying, discussing, copying and improving the stuff others come up with.
It's only logical to expect this kind of machine coming up with extreme cases that developers couldn't predict, meaning that there will always be annoying outliers, OP ships and fits. Preemptive measures against these would result in a very boring game, but it would probably be good to react to these in a reasonable amount of time.
I do give props to CCP for improving their balancing times, stuff actually gets fixed now and current PVP meta is wonderfully heterogenic, fast-changing and level compared to what it was when I started EVE.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 15:02:00 -
[316] - Quote
Just for info, you can get over 6k active armour tank from a legion, and 6.7k from a abaddon.
Shield tank is in no way op, nor is armour tank underpowered, people who think that simply dont pvp much (or only do it in blobs). Yes, crystals give shield tankers an edge but nobles arent bad either and armour is way more cap efficient.
A pimped out astarte for example has less burst tank then a pimped sleipnir but due to pith x type cap consumtion it tanks quite a lot more overall. And if the sleipnir uses gist boosters it loses the edge and the armour tank simply tanks more.
And with the link changes a asb sleip tanks 3.8k dps with per asb with tengu links, hg crystals and a strong blue pill, that is already less then what a pimped armour tanker can tank, gets even weirder if you start to favor in the cycle time, 60 sec reload, ca 33 secs of boost per booster = a under 2k dps tank in reality. And thats with the best implants/links in game.
And while that sleipnir with heat reaches a 2.5k active tank, or a 5k burst tank with pith x a blinged hyperion (no officer stuff) can easily top 9k (again with nerfed links).
A fully blinged maelstrom tanks even less.
Armour tank is already superior to a shield tank in most situations on tq (a dual masb hawk for example reps in reality less then a dualrep incursus).
(all numbers with current propsed link/rep changes) |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 15:27:00 -
[317] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Just for info, you can get over 6k active armour tank from a legion, and 6.7k from a abaddon.
Shield tank is in no way op, nor is armour tank underpowered, people who think that simply dont pvp much (or only do it in blobs). Yes, crystals give shield tankers an edge but nobles arent bad either and armour is way more cap efficient.
A pimped out astarte for example has less burst tank then a pimped sleipnir but due to pith x type cap consumtion it tanks quite a lot more overall. And if the sleipnir uses gist boosters it loses the edge and the armour tank simply tanks more.
And with the link changes a asb sleip tanks 3.8k dps with per asb with tengu links, hg crystals and a strong blue pill, that is already less then what a pimped armour tanker can tank, gets even weirder if you start to favor in the cycle time, 60 sec reload, ca 33 secs of boost per booster = a under 2k dps tank in reality. And thats with the best implants/links in game.
And while that sleipnir with heat reaches a 2.5k active tank, or a 5k burst tank with pith x a blinged hyperion (no officer stuff) can easily top 9k (again with nerfed links).
A fully blinged maelstrom tanks even less.
Armour tank is already superior to a shield tank in most situations on tq (a dual masb hawk for example reps in reality less then a dualrep incursus).
(all numbers with current propsed link/rep changes)
I call shenanigans. Post your fits for this epic armor tanking Legion/Abaddon. If they can do it at all, it's certain they are incapable of doing it for long, and are incapable of doing anything else but tank.
Stop trolling. 0/10
|
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 16:19:00 -
[318] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Just for info, you can get over 6k active armour tank from a legion, and 6.7k from a abaddon.
Shield tank is in no way op, nor is armour tank underpowered, people who think that simply dont pvp much (or only do it in blobs). Yes, crystals give shield tankers an edge but nobles arent bad either and armour is way more cap efficient.
A pimped out astarte for example has less burst tank then a pimped sleipnir but due to pith x type cap consumtion it tanks quite a lot more overall. And if the sleipnir uses gist boosters it loses the edge and the armour tank simply tanks more.
And with the link changes a asb sleip tanks 3.8k dps with per asb with tengu links, hg crystals and a strong blue pill, that is already less then what a pimped armour tanker can tank, gets even weirder if you start to favor in the cycle time, 60 sec reload, ca 33 secs of boost per booster = a under 2k dps tank in reality. And thats with the best implants/links in game.
And while that sleipnir with heat reaches a 2.5k active tank, or a 5k burst tank with pith x a blinged hyperion (no officer stuff) can easily top 9k (again with nerfed links).
A fully blinged maelstrom tanks even less.
Armour tank is already superior to a shield tank in most situations on tq (a dual masb hawk for example reps in reality less then a dualrep incursus).
(all numbers with current propsed link/rep changes) SPecifically, I'm referring to Level 4 mission running fits, and no, to fit an abbadon with enough resists/damage/etc, a comparably fit Legion easily will out-rep it. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
133
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 16:34:00 -
[319] - Quote
Im not taking about pve, i couldnt care less about it.
Im taking for numbers for blinged out (x type deadspace reppers and so on) pvp fits, with nobles, strong exiles and legion links.
(watch a old garmonation video for example, one of those armour repping ships easily broke 6k active tank) |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.05 19:38:00 -
[320] - Quote
The final thing armor tanking needs to be an effective sustained tanking system is there capacitor usage reduced. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
Yeshmiel
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 00:11:00 -
[321] - Quote
Great direction but nerfing the value of the higher end mods is really screwing a lot of people out of a lot of isk. No, I don't have any but this is an effect that needs to be considered. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
341
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 01:04:00 -
[322] - Quote
Cycle duration is far more important then total rep amount, imo. Armor reps are already pretty efficient, and this is going to swing PVE fittings heavily towards armor.
For PVP, which is where armor has a problem, throughput is less of an issue then the delay. In small gang warfare, 12 seconds (medium repper) is enough time to go from not yet targeted to dead. This change will not affect pvp at all, except for some niche areas (frigate vs frigate, capitals). Cut the delay in half, cut the reps/cycle and cap use to match, and THEN take a look at throughput. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1429
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 01:27:00 -
[323] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Cycle duration is far more important then total rep amount, imo. Armor reps are already pretty efficient, and this is going to swing PVE fittings heavily towards armor.
For PVP, which is where armor has a problem, throughput is less of an issue then the delay. In small gang warfare, 12 seconds (medium repper) is enough time to go from not yet targeted to dead. This change will not affect pvp at all, except for some niche areas (frigate vs frigate, capitals). Cut the delay in half, cut the reps/cycle and cap use to match, and THEN take a look at throughput. The problem with that is, when all the numbers are boiled down armor and shields rep about the same amount of HP in the same amount of time for about the same amount of cap. The big difference is, shields will also passive regenerate during this. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Ellendras Silver
No Self Esteem ShAdOw PoLiTiCs
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 08:32:00 -
[324] - Quote
ok dont feel like readomg 17 pages of replies... so it might been asked before..
does this 15% boost stack with siege/triage ? |
Dav Varan
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
42
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 09:44:00 -
[325] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.
Guristas line Boost = Base Boost [t1] * 1.05 ^ meta-level Angel line Activation Cost = Base Activation Cost[t1] / 1.05 ^ meta-level
Smooth out them anomolies |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3233
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 09:46:00 -
[326] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Cycle duration is far more important then total rep amount, imo. Armor reps are already pretty efficient, and this is going to swing PVE fittings heavily towards armor.
For PVP, which is where armor has a problem, throughput is less of an issue then the delay. In small gang warfare, 12 seconds (medium repper) is enough time to go from not yet targeted to dead. This change will not affect pvp at all, except for some niche areas (frigate vs frigate, capitals). Cut the delay in half, cut the reps/cycle and cap use to match, and THEN take a look at throughput.
Then again, medium rep cycle 5.5 seconds in practical situations. If you cut the base cycle time in half, armor reps would work in under 3 seconds, which makes them too much like shield reps.
Being forced to anticipate is the drawback for a rather serious amount reps. I get 1589 hp/s peak reps against CNAM on my Myrm without links.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:33:00 -
[327] - Quote
Wolf, when you decide to start talking real fits, that's fine, but no abaddon is going to go self repping for over 6k hp/s. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
2500
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:37:00 -
[328] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Michael Harari wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not. This makes the pith c-type strictly worse than DG You are correct, that's a detail that I had missed and since the rep bonus increase from T2 to DG boosters is twice as much as the rep bonus increase from T2 to DB armor reps it probably means the DG/CN boosters need to get excluded from this change. Gonna do some more thinking and get back to you.
Any update on how you're going to handle this little bit yet?
Personally I'd be happy if you boosted the Pith C-type a little to put it on top of the DG booster and call it a day.
Obviously I may be a biased Pith C-type booster owner... :)
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
422
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 15:46:00 -
[329] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Wolf, when you decide to start talking real fits, that's fine, but no abaddon is going to go self repping for over 6k hp/s.
Abbadon's pitiful cap recharge makes it not even worth bothering with surely Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.06 22:12:00 -
[330] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Wolf, when you decide to start talking real fits, that's fine, but no abaddon is going to go self repping for over 6k hp/s. Abbadon's pitiful cap recharge makes it not even worth bothering with surely I agree, and it's something I've been bashing away at to CCP for several months now, even tried involving the CSM, and the heart of the response overall I seem to get is "go F* off, we don't want to be bothered about it." |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
138
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 00:32:00 -
[331] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:Wolf, when you decide to start talking real fits, that's fine, but no abaddon is going to go self repping for over 6k hp/s.
I know, and no one woudl spend 6 bil pimping it to tank those amounts, it however can do that, which is important as that blinged out generic shield fits get compared to t2 armour tankers and deemed op while the blinged armour tank never gets mentioned. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 05:20:00 -
[332] - Quote
you don't even pay attention to what's being said. No properly fit, (regardless of how expensive) Abaddon is going to rep 6k hp/s.
Yet you, yet again, just said it does. |
Merii Kha'sen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 06:28:00 -
[333] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:ok don't feel like reading 17 pages of replies... so it might been asked before..
does this 15% boost stack with siege/triage ?
Yes, since the 15% is to the base amount of armor repaired.
If your repper repairs 1000 armor now, unfit, with no bonuses applied to it, it will repair 1150 armor post-change. At this point any skills and bonuses will stack on top of that, including any modules and rigs that affect the amount. |
GeneralNukeEm
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:12:00 -
[334] - Quote
Pelea Ming wrote:you don't even pay attention to what's being said. No properly fit, (regardless of how expensive) Abaddon is going to rep 6k hp/s.
Yet you, yet again, just said it does. 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. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
754
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:20:00 -
[335] - 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. |
GeneralNukeEm
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
6
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:22:00 -
[336] - Quote
Pretty sure it costs less than a supercap. |
Andrew Indy
Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 08:55:00 -
[337] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Pelea Ming wrote:Wolf, when you decide to start talking real fits, that's fine, but no abaddon is going to go self repping for over 6k hp/s. I know, and no one woudl spend 6 bil pimping it to tank those amounts, it however can do that, which is important as that blinged out generic shield fits get compared to t2 armour tankers and deemed op while the blinged armour tank never gets mentioned.
Pretty easy to sort this out. i'm using large/XL in this example with the best in class mods
Type - Amount - Cycle (secs) - Amount per Second - Amount per Cap
T2 Armor - 800 - 15 - 53.33 - 2 T2 Armor 1.1 - 920 - 15 - 61.33 - 2.3 ARR - 1350 - 15 - 90 - 3.375 ARR 1.1 - 1552.5 - 15 - 103.5 - 3.88 True S - 900 - 15 - 60 - 2 True S 1.1 - 1035 - 15 - 69 - 2.3 CorpX - 1260 - 15 - 84 - 2.8 CorpX 1.1 - 1449 - 15 - 96.6 - 3.22
T2 Shield L - 240 - 4 - 60 - 1.5 T2 Shield L 1.1 - 276 - 4 - 69 - 1.73 CN L - 240 - 3.2 - 75 - 1.5 CN L 1.1 - 276 - 3.2 - 86.25 - 1.73 ASB L - 390 - 4 - 97.5 - NA PithX - 336 - 3.2 - 105 - 2.1
T2 Shield XL - 600 - 5 - 120 - 1.5 T2 Shield XL 1.1 690 - 5 - 138 - 1.73 CN XL - 600 - 4 - 150 - 1.5 CN XL 1.1 - 690 - 4 - 172.5 - 1.73 ASB XL - 980 - 5 - 196 - NA PithX - 840 - 4 - 210 - 2.1
Not sure if its clear but for Faction and T2 things are fairly balanced , Shields use more Cap but booster more and sooner. But of these are all getting a boost.
Then look at ASB vs AAR, the current ASB L beats the AAR in boost amount, boosting straight away and cap use (none). After the changes the AAR boosts slightly more but still use cap and boosts at the end the cycle and lets not even talk about the XL ASB.
DS L Mods look OK, a DS L mod boosts more than a DS L Armour Mod but uses more cap (true before and after the buff). XL however becomes an Issue as the XL boosts over double the DS Armour mod
Then through Amps into the equation and stuff shifts towards shields.
Edit.
I have a mission Paladin with an X type rep and a Friend has a Golem with X type booster+Amp . Each with 2X Resist mods (2x type hardeners)
He uses 85 cap per second and reps 1417 DPS vs sansha, I rep 700DPS vs Sansha and use 75. Now i must admit that his ship does not have great Cap regen but as far as the mods go the Booster is a lot more efficient not to mention that his ship has a 0 base resist against EM while mine as a base of 50. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
219
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:44:00 -
[338] - Quote
Yeshmiel wrote:Great direction but nerfing the value of the higher end mods is really screwing a lot of people out of a lot of isk. No, I don't have any but this is an effect that needs to be considered.
Market speculation isn't really, nor should it be considered in balancing ever. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Jezza McWaffle
The-Hole-Idea Void-Legion
54
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:48:00 -
[339] - Quote
Akturous wrote:Yeshmiel wrote:Great direction but nerfing the value of the higher end mods is really screwing a lot of people out of a lot of isk. No, I don't have any but this is an effect that needs to be considered. Market speculation isn't really, nor should it be considered in balancing ever.
Then how do you balance deadspace and faction items. |
Sigras
Conglomo
493
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 09:55:00 -
[340] - 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. It appears that you misquoted the lady
Pelea Ming wrote:you don't even pay attention to what's being said. No properly fit, (regardless of how expensive) Abaddon is going to rep 6k hp/s. Now returning to your picture . . . if you think that is a proper fit you do not belong in PL |
|
xHxHxAOD
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 12:29:00 -
[341] - Quote
is there any update from fozzie on this |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 14:22:00 -
[342] - Quote
Sigras wrote: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. It appears that you misquoted the lady Pelea Ming wrote:you don't even pay attention to what's being said. No properly fit, (regardless of how expensive) Abaddon is going to rep 6k hp/s. Now returning to your picture . . . if you think that is a proper fit you do not belong in PL Thank you very much for pointing that out, and again, I stick to my original statement, to wit, proper fit. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7282
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:37:00 -
[343] - Quote
Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think! Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1431
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[344] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think! So, no cap usage reduction for armor repairers? that is quite a problem still. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
337
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:40:00 -
[345] - Quote
Hey, Pulsar is not a problem, deal with it.
You made Shield and Armor WH to make them more harder with Shield or Armor ships.
So why talking about "FIXING" Pulsar and Rayets? Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
535
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:47:00 -
[346] - Quote
Nice changes ! A bit sad for ASBs though, it could have been useful to buff them too, but I understand how much pressure people can produce :o G££ <= Me |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:57:00 -
[347] - Quote
FOZZIE
come on fozzie this doesn't address the underlying problems with armour tanking at all... Please tell me you will have a much more thorough fix of armour repping down the line at least??? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 16:58:00 -
[348] - Quote
+ Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% + Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
I would like to point out that this results in a boost to all local tanking except for the deadspace shield boosters. This is a good thing as we both A) don't get anything nerfed. B) non-deadspace shield boosting as well as armor tanking of the pimped and non-pimped variety becomes more viable.
This is something that has been needed for years, independent of any changes to links. Bravo. Fighting is Magic |
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
99
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:02:00 -
[349] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Let us know what you think!
Oh God, my deadspace-fit PvP Paladin will be repping 4600 per cycle.
Note to self: upgrade the rigs to tech II. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:05:00 -
[350] - Quote
Definatly a lovely buff for solo/small gang pvp, tho sadly also a buff for pve |
|
Aimee Maken
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:14:00 -
[351] - Quote
i think the new changes works out for bling pve and pvp, more pve tho given that ASB in comparison is still much better than pith for burst tank for much less the price than pith + cap booster
|
Phoenix Jones
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
146
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:21:00 -
[352] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
That's digestible. I would not go beyond that atm though. |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:23:00 -
[353] - Quote
Any consideration to the insane repoint power this will create for te already op dual rep Incursus? There was a slight nerf to the Incursus repoint power in a previous release but now it's getting a buff again. I understand most fights you can disengage due to the lack of a web on the dual rep but the repoint power is too damn high for a T1 frig. |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
411
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:29:00 -
[354] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think! So, no cap usage reduction for armor repairers? that is quite a problem still. I have to join this bandwagon. It doesn't make any sense that shield local reps are far more powerful, require no cap (in ASBs) and can fit larger modules, all taking up one slot.
In order to effectively local armor tank, you need a minimum of two modules (cap booster and repper), and most of the time you have to double or triple rep (which necessitates another cap booster).
I just don't know how reasonable it is to expect that there's going to be scores of adopters for local armor tanking giving these glaring differences. Granted, I am not advocating for homogenizing shield and armor tanking. I am, however, advocating to being provided with the reasoning why I'd use a local armor tank given all the deficiencies. I understand that local armor tanking's "thought" is that you have more sustained tanking potential (for an "over-the-course-of-the-fight" mentality) and with shield you can tank very effectively under burst conditions. I think those differences are great.
But, then, how do you reconcile the fact that a sustained armor tank "over-the-course-of-the-fight" is going to consume FAR much more cap than a shield setup? (This isn't even considering that armor-tanking-focused ships' weapon systems require either the most cap or second most cap (compared to none).) Without some sort of cap reduction, I don't think it's viable to think that local armor reps will be adopted outside the most specialized scenario (bait tanking) or for the random (and RARE) solo encounter. Cap independent, oversized, huge-rep ASB shield setups are going to remain king for local reps. There's a reason you see Brutixes being tanked with an XLASB and Invul over using those 6 lows to take advantage of its hull bonus.
Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:42:00 -
[355] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:Any consideration to the insane repoint power this will create for te already op dual rep Incursus? There was a slight nerf to the Incursus repoint power in a previous release but now it's getting a buff again. I understand most fights you can disengage due to the lack of a web on the dual rep but the repoint power is too damn high for a T1 frig.
its called a nuet and most incursus dont fit a cap booster. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:00:00 -
[356] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Mara Maken wrote:Any consideration to the insane repoint power this will create for te already op dual rep Incursus? There was a slight nerf to the Incursus repoint power in a previous release but now it's getting a buff again. I understand most fights you can disengage due to the lack of a web on the dual rep but the repoint power is too damn high for a T1 frig. its called a nuet and most incursus dont fit a cap booster.
If you aren't running a cap booster on a dual rep Incursus you are doing it wrong. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1203
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:09:00 -
[357] - Quote
Mara Maken wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Mara Maken wrote:Any consideration to the insane repoint power this will create for te already op dual rep Incursus? There was a slight nerf to the Incursus repoint power in a previous release but now it's getting a buff again. I understand most fights you can disengage due to the lack of a web on the dual rep but the repoint power is too damn high for a T1 frig. its called a nuet and most incursus dont fit a cap booster. If you aren't running a cap booster on a dual rep Incursus you are doing it wrong.
i guess all those FW plexes i did was wrong then.
anywho... if they are cap boosted then you just need to kite them untill they run out then they die.... still dont see what the problem is. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Hybrid tech I ammo boost |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:16:00 -
[358] - Quote
Usually dual rep Incursus do have a cap booster, problem is not the dual rep incursus, you can always get out from that fight since they don't carry a web.
Single rep Incursus is already very good, it is fast in their class, hits very hard with blasters or rails, and now it tanks like a boss. I understand that this is just a collateral effect since the buffs to armor reps are very welcome, but I wouldn't be surprised to see way more incursus flying around after the next patch.
And the blue ones know it, that's why they nerfed the ship bonus when SAAR was deployed in game. |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:35:00 -
[359] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Mara Maken wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Mara Maken wrote:Any consideration to the insane repoint power this will create for te already op dual rep Incursus? There was a slight nerf to the Incursus repoint power in a previous release but now it's getting a buff again. I understand most fights you can disengage due to the lack of a web on the dual rep but the repoint power is too damn high for a T1 frig. its called a nuet and most incursus dont fit a cap booster. If you aren't running a cap booster on a dual rep Incursus you are doing it wrong. i guess all those FW plexes i did was wrong then. anywho... if they are cap boosted then you just need to kite them untill they run out then they die.... still dont see what the problem is.
You ran a dual rep with no booster? What was your cap, can be more then 30 seconds.
Anyway, if you want to wait out their cap boosters prepare for 30 minutes of shooting.. this does happen.
I guess just like the dual MASB Hawk.. solo 1v1 against the Incursus is usually an exercise in frustration. |
Corporal Cina
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:47:00 -
[360] - Quote
I still don't understand why you can fit two (or more) ASB but only one AAR.
Why does the AAR not get a cap use reduction when using paste? (not cap free.. just some kind of reduction?) I realize the ASB doesn't get as big of a boost compared to the AAR, but to be capless is everything.
Fozzie, do you have future plans to even out the armor/shield tanking disparity? dual XLASB fits on armor rep bonused ships should speak louder than any words I can say. (Myrm/Brutix etc) |
|
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:59:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
Ok, WTF. SRSLY. This is worse than just taking away the bonus from the faction boosters idea that you had earlier. Lets step back a moment. All forms of active boosting need to gain ground on deadspace shield boosters (particularly Pithi, Pithum, and Gist). The previous plan achieved this without nerfing anything. The previous plan had the problem of making faction shield boosters better than C-types (but ONLY at the L and X-L level for the DG-Pith boosters).
15% vs 10% does NOT constitute the other forms of reps gaining meaningful ground on the deadspace shield boosters.
Please look at this table here: http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Shield_Booster
If you look at this, you'll see the ONLY place where the jump from faction -> C-type is "small," (and thus the 15% bonus to the faction version would make faction outclass the C-type) is for gurista/Pith L and X-L boosters. For Domination->Gist, the cap efficiency and raw boost amount goes up majorly. For small and medium boosters, the cap efficiency and raw boost amount goes up HUGELY from DG->pithum c-type and domination->gistum c-type.
Gist boosters do not need increased boost amounts at all (maybe the Gist L ones do, but not by much). Also, the dread guristas faction boosters are not OP at any level. If you buff the t2 without buffing DG, you'll see DG get less cap efficient because currently their only bonus is lower skill requirement and shorter cycle time. HP/cap is identical to t2.
SOLUTION + Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% + Increase the shield bonus of all Tech 1, Tech 2, Domination, Dread Gursitas, Caldari Navy, Republic Fleet, and Storyline shield boosters by 15% + Increase the shield bonus of all Pith Large and X-Large shield boosters by 15% (and their identical officer versions) + Increase the shield bonus of Gist Large boosters by 5% (and their identical officer versions)
Effects: Net nerf (not a nerf, just a reduced advantage) to pithi,gisti, pithum, gistum, and Gist-XL boosters. These are the ones that are out of line. Even at the C-types, these boosters are where the numbers go crazy. Yes, you can see very clearly where the numbers go crazy if you calculate the HP/Sec, HP/cap for each booster. For ALL of the faction versions, the numbers are in line.
Sorry for the jumbled post and me repeating myself. Cannot stress enough how important it is to recognize exactly which boosters the numbers get crazy for. I have been ranting about this for YEARS, because thats when i figured out the numbers were ABSURD. It also has interesting affect on the distribution of explorers in empire space). PLZ RESPOND. Also nice job casting the tournament. Fighting is Magic |
Michael J Caboose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:20:00 -
[362] - Quote
Batelle wrote: *snip*
SOLUTION + Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% + Increase the shield bonus of all Tech 1, Tech 2, Domination, Dread Gursitas, Caldari Navy, Republic Fleet, and Storyline shield boosters by 15% + Increase the shield bonus of all Pith Large and X-Large shield boosters by 15% (and their identical officer versions) + Increase the shield bonus of Gist Large boosters by 5% (and their identical officer versions)
Effects: Net nerf (not a nerf, just a reduced advantage) to pithi,gisti, pithum, gistum, and Gist-XL boosters. These are the ones that are out of line. Even at the C-types, these boosters are where the numbers go crazy. Yes, you can see very clearly where the numbers go crazy if you calculate the HP/Sec, HP/cap for each booster. For ALL of the faction versions, the numbers are in line.
How does buffing all Pith L and XL boosters by the same 15% result in a reduced advantage? Any buff to the L and XL Deadspace/Officer shield boosters should be maybe 5%, not the 10% Fozzie has proposed, and definitely not the full 15% that armor reppers and T1/T2 shield boosters are getting. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1097
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:27:00 -
[363] - Quote
Batelle wrote:+ Increase the repair amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% + Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
I would like to point out that this results in a boost to all local tanking except for the deadspace shield boosters. This is a good thing as we both A) don't get anything nerfed. B) non-deadspace shield boosting as well as armor tanking of the pimped and non-pimped variety becomes more viable.
This is something that has been needed for years, independent of any changes to links. Bravo.
Right now, the gap in between local armor reps and shield reps is already huge but instead of fixing that a 15% buff to armor reps is followed by a 10% boost to all shield boosters. So in the end my armor ships will still be far behing my shield ships, it's a step forward and a half back.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
152
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:50:00 -
[364] - Quote
Not all boosters are created equally, and that's the rub. The gap between them and t2 shield stuff is the same as the gap between deadpsace armor and t2 armor reps, meaning the Pith boosters should get the same 15%. Pithum medium and Gist X-L are the ones that are out of line. Basically all t2 and ALL faction have 1.5 Hp/GJ (Gigajoule) efficiency. Faction versions have better cycle time. Then C-types have a 10% increase in efficiency over t2. B-types have a 20% higher efficiency, and so on. This is how it works for ALL armor modules as well (i'm fairly sure, except armor start with 2hp/GJ baseline). But small/med deadspace, and large/XL Gist are just INEXPLICABLY off the charts on this metric.
Dread Guristas Medium Shield Booster: 1.5 Hp/GJ Pithum C-type Medium Shield booster: 2.71 Hp/GJ
DG Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ Pith C-Type X-Large: 1.65 Hp/GJ (10% efficiency bonus)
DG X-Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ Pith C-Type X-Large: 1.65 Hp/GJ (10% efficiency bonus)
Domination Med Booster: 1.5 Hp/GJ Gistum C-type Med Booster: 3.625 HP/GJ
Domination Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ Gist C-type Large: 2.38 Hp/GJ
Domination X-Large: 1.5 Hp/GJ Gist C-type X-Large: 2.93 Hp/GJ (WTF, this is the C-type, not even the X-type)
Now this is just HP/Cap efficiency. There's a different story if you consider the amount repped per second, which matters as well in both PVE and PVP. This is why the Pithum A-types are the best boosters even though they're less efficient than their gistum counter parts, and why Gist L boosters are super efficient but actually run into rep-speed problems in some scenarios. But it clearly explains why the Gist X-L boosters, which have both Insane efficiency and high HP/Sec makes them extremely powerful modules in all applications.
I've seen golem fits that run on 1 pithum A-type booster and 2 invulns. These mods specifically are the holy grail of efficient perma tanking without the traditional sacrifices of rep amount or damage application/projection. The gap between the DG med booster and the pithum C-type is so large that I simply wouldn't use my PVE tengu without one (nearly doubled sustained tank!!!! well worth 300m when I'm going into 8/10s and 10/10s). Take a look at eve-central, the imbalances in the base numbers are reflected inn the market prices.
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:So in the end my armor ships will still be far behind my shield ships, it's one step forward and a half step back. I made the post you quoted right as Fozzie put up his changes (which he made having seen the gap between DG boosters to Pith C-types was small, even though this is nearly the only example of this). I quoted the original changes, which were closer to what we want than the second version. Fighting is Magic |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
435
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:22:00 -
[365] - Quote
FOZZIE
when you introduced the AAR the rationale armour tanking was supposed to be more continuous repping than shield boosting. This is what people want to hear but you do not do it in practice..
- continuous repping would be reps every second or this statement was nonsense ... now granted the server might not allow for every second but 2 seconds you can do ...
- so less reps than shield boosting but more frequent and with a low cap usage would make sense and give armour an advantage over shield boosting. as atm shields are just plain better.
AAR's - remove limit of 1 per ship - allow nanite skills to affect nanite paste use in AAR's - when nanite paste runs out allow reps to continue at normal rep amount minus the paste bonuses. - use an inject system instead of reload... so it takes 15 seconds to inject nanite paste whilst reps continue as normal non nanite paste amounts... this makes sense as nanite paste is tiny so wouldn't take long to reload or inject compared to bulky Cap boosters if you don't do these things than ASB's will always be superior
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
xHxHxAOD
Southern Cross Incorporated Flying Dangerous
4
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 20:51:00 -
[366] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
not bad would like to see armor reps have a 10-15% less cap but what ever
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:17:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
I was wondering why the deadspace shield boosters did not recieve any boost. Glad you retrified that.
I do however think that armor reppers need to have their cap usage reduced, across the board, like the gist variant vs pith variant, more rep for more cap, and vice versa.
It would be nice to see the same thing with corpus armor reppers and centus version. This would also make one version more viable for pve usage, and one more for pvp.
Exactly like the shield versions.
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Stay Frosty.
84
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:24:00 -
[368] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
Power creep. Serious power creep. |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1308
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 21:30:00 -
[369] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think! Power creep. Serious power creep.
I don't think you know what that word means. BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:13:00 -
[370] - Quote
Seriously, something still needs to be done in regards to cap on the armor reppers. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:13:00 -
[371] - Quote
High active tanking numbers, and active tanking in general, is a bad mechanic, with low numbers it is ok, but once you enter a number where you can easily permatank one opponent of similar size you enter a very bad zone.
Your intentiones are good (buff active takning while enrfing tanking links to even it out) but you create a to highly tanked meta which is very bad.
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.
Do you think a vengeance should be able to tank over 600 dps with drugs and heat alone, no implants, no links?
Make sure not to overbuff!! |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
755
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:43:00 -
[372] - 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. |
Thaman Arnuad
Offworld Miners and Fabricators Guild
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:44:00 -
[373] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:FOZZIE
when you introduced the AAR the rationale armour tanking was supposed to be more continuous repping than shield boosting. This is what people want to hear but you do not do it in practice..
- continuous repping would be reps every second or this statement was nonsense ... now granted the server might not allow for every second but 2 seconds you can do ...
- so less reps than shield boosting but more frequent and with a low cap usage would make sense and give armour an advantage over shield boosting. as atm shields are just plain better.
AAR's - remove limit of 1 per ship - allow nanite skills to affect nanite paste use in AAR's - when nanite paste runs out allow reps to continue at normal rep amount minus the paste bonuses. - use an inject system instead of reload... so it takes 15 seconds to inject nanite paste whilst reps continue as normal non nanite paste amounts... this makes sense as nanite paste is tiny so wouldn't take long to reload or inject compared to bulky Cap boosters if you don't do these things than ASB's will always be superior
For normal armour reps just make them rep more than AAR's by default but obviously less as no nanite paste to boost amount
I support this.
I would like there to be some thought about a mod for armor that functions like a Shield Booster Amp.
|
Crazy On You
Professional Dockers
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 23:49:00 -
[374] - Quote
I love the changes here foz. But are any plans to differentiate between the corp and cent deadspace armor repairers? Would love to have some sort of variety there. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:11:00 -
[375] - Quote
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but you do realize that so far, the 'tweaks' to various weapon systems have had the net effect of making them more powerful... I don't see, therfor, that making shield/armor reps abit more powerful as a bad thing. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 00:36:00 -
[376] - Quote
Why not make AARs work slightly differently than they do today. Under normal operation they would rep an amount appropriate for the module's meta level and consume no paste. When overheated they would take the normal amount of heat damage. However, this damage would be mitigated by consuming the paste that is loaded in the module. The amount of paste consumed could then be modified by the pilot's appropriate skills in overheating and also receive bonuses from ship hulls like T3 cruisers.
I see two benefits to this approach. First it would make the module more interactive in that the rep boost can be controlled. Under normal tanking situations you don't have to burn paste (@ 15k a pop JITA) just to rep. You can burn the paste when you need the extra boost. Second, I like how it would tie into other skills and ship bonuses. The capacity of the module and the boost amount would probably need to be tweaked. However this change would make the AAR truly unique when compared to their shield cousins. |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:01:00 -
[377] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote: *snip*
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.
I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before. |
Pelea Ming
Prostitutes Are Always Wlling Care Factor
317
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:10:00 -
[378] - Quote
I also rather liked how one must assume he finds anything larger then 1v1 to be a blob :P |
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1411
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:13:00 -
[379] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
Please consider making the difference between tech 1 and tech 2 armor repair cap use. Make it more of a trade off with tech 2 being much larger and faster reps but at the cost of being difficult to make cap stable. Make tech 1 armor reps 15% less cap use. Increase tech 2 armor reps 10% and increase armor repair rate by 10% as well.
Make it a greater trade off give powerful defense to a player willing to run our of cap faster, creates more roles for cap transfer. http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
516
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 01:21:00 -
[380] - Quote
Iome Ambraelle wrote:Why not make AARs work slightly differently than they do today. Under normal operation they would rep an amount appropriate for the module's meta level and consume no paste. When overheated they would take the normal amount of heat damage. However, this damage would be mitigated by consuming the paste that is loaded in the module. The amount of paste consumed could then be modified by the pilot's appropriate skills in overheating and also receive bonuses from ship hulls like T3 cruisers.
I see two benefits to this approach. First it would make the module more interactive in that the rep boost can be controlled. Under normal tanking situations you don't have to burn paste (@ 15k a pop JITA) just to rep. You can burn the paste when you need the extra boost. Second, I like how it would tie into other skills and ship bonuses. The capacity of the module and the boost amount would probably need to be tweaked. However this change would make the AAR truly unique when compared to their shield cousins. It's a good idea. It was suggested way back when AAR first came into the game. But CCP dropped it on the floor without comment. It also was suggested (by me, maybe others) in the Reasonable Things thread, but it did not make the cut to the 99 things list. |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:15:00 -
[381] - Quote
Heribeck Weathers wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: *snip*
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.
I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before.
You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts.
Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3248
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:49:00 -
[382] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: *snip*
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.
I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before. You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts. Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.
How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement.
I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1115
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 11:33:00 -
[383] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob.
Nope, it's several things but not a blob:
1-an MMO is a gaming/social experience and social means several people interacting together, opposite is antisocial and any psychiatrist will tell you MMOs are not well suited for those people that are rather disturbing elements in whatever social interaction.
2-selling point of Eve is not "twinks online" for that there are several known private servers of almost every game where day 1 you get tops stuff and program to create your own super ultra twink, but becomes quickly boring heh?
3-choosing to play solo in Eve has a much different impact than in any other game. Because losses have meanings, because scripts are not aloud (still many use bots and programs to enhance significantly their in game abilities) and because Eve is about numbers, like it or hate it that's how it is, REAL solo players never complain and ACT - take a look at some Kill2 videos to figure what is a real solo player in Eve and not another random pawn with boosters at pos and cloak support if things turn bad for him because his KB would look shameful (in his poor mind) if he looses one ship and at the same time not shameful with hundreds of cyno frigs killed
In Eve there are groups of players interacting one way or another with each other but everything is about competition, solo combat players are not representative of the game core or selling argument. Doesn't mean they don't have their place but just that they have to play with the exact same rubicube everyone else in Eve does and stop complaining about "blob" here "blob" there, if they really hate that much interact with other players they can always play google games and sudoku.
On topic, while armor reps are getting a bit better and before going even further on whatever nerf/buff CCP Fozzie should really consider the feedback from all threads about this for a couple years, there's one constant coming back every single time: Efficiency HPs/cap because it's the only one that matters with local reps and in this specific department armor are a huge lie with used words to describe it like "sustainability", wtf is this lie when you have to use cap booster changers that ARE FINITE???
CCP trolling always best trolling. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:26:00 -
[384] - Quote
can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff? i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.
buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep... |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 12:40:00 -
[385] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff? i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.
buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep...
I'd say what you're looking at is CCP trying to encourage people switching to active tanking outside of big fleets because active tanks are weaker by nature. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: active tanks die to alpha and are weaker to neuts or high dps. Buffer tanking will always be preferable to active tanking for any situation where dps can be spared for logi.
I would expect nerfs to remote repairing to come before the year is over. It makes sense if they're trying to weaken blob tactics by reducing their buffer hp, their links and finishing the process by nerfing remote reps probably by making logi ships incapable of cap stability Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
756
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 13:12:00 -
[386] - 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. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1436
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:20:00 -
[387] - Quote
Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff? i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.
buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep... The buff was done to makeup for the loss that came from the link nerf, that is all. Many, myself included, took this opprutinity to bring up the flaws with armor tanking and ask for further change to it so that it would have a better foothold with shield tanking.
Right now shield tanking is more efficient in pretty much every fashion. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:28:00 -
[388] - Quote
It wouldn't really matter if you completely closed the HP/sec between shield and armor repair. Their application is really the problem. With shields applying their boost at the beginning of their cycle, their max rep amount in any time window is 2x boost in cycle time + some small portion of a second. This provides a massive boost to shield values in the opening seconds of a battle and can help you survive the second alpha strike (granted the first didn't overcome your shield completely). If your opponent's gun cycle is 7+ seconds, you can even pack 3 complete boosts in between the first and second strike. From that point on, it's up to your HP/sec vs their DPS.
Armor is much worse in this scenario. Because armor reppers provide their benefit at the end of their cycle and have long cycle times, the opponent would easily get off two strikes before even your first rep lands. At least the first strike will simply be burning your shields. The problem is that in any given window of time an armor boat can only rep twice in ~9.25 seconds and only once at the opening of the battle in 17.75 seconds. Taking the same opponent as before, they can manage 3 strikes against you while you can only rep once at the opening of the battle. Depending on how quickly you activate your repper after the first hit, they can even manage 5 strikes against two of your repair cycles.
Time: Strikes-Reps T+0: 1-0 T+7: 2-0 T+9: 2-1 T+14: 3-1 T+18: 3-2 T+21: 4-2 T+27: 4-3
So your opponent operates at 300% damage at T+14 versus your 100% rep (This is more realistically 200% as your shield will probably eat most or all of the initial strike). Things even out after that but you'll always be down one rep cycle to their weapons and at times two. This is the best case scenario with you activating your repper at the exact moment of the incoming damage. How does a shield setup compare?
T+0: 1-0 T+.5: 1-1 T+3.7: 1-2 T+6.9: 1-3 T+7: 2-3
It's almost completely opposite. The shield tanker can squeeze in three full boosts prior to the second strike. Most likely eliminating the initial strikes effects entirely. From that point on they typically operate from 150-200% boost vs the opponents 100% damage. The real issue isn't HP/sec but HP/time window. Things would be more equitable if shields boosted at the end of their shorter cycle and armor was at the beginning. Here's how that looks:
Time: Strike/Shield/Armor T+0: 1-0-0 T+.5: 1-0-1 T+3.7: 1-1-1 T+6.9: 1-2-1 T+7: 2-2-1 T+9.5: 2-2-2
Shields are still capable of packing two extra cycles into the RoF of the opponents weapons but it will usually only be one. Armor will see significant benefits as they will remain even most of time and only occasionally fall behind a cycle for a limited time. If someone can pop you with 1 strike above your rep cycle you were going to lose anyways. But the way it sits now, you're going to take at least 2 strikes between reps and that is far too dangerous. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:28:00 -
[389] - Quote
Roime wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: *snip*
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.
I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before. You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts. Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob. How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement. I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.
You should not be able to tank 2-3 of them, you should outplay them by kiting or seperating them long enough to get a kill.
And whoever thinks gameplay that encourages blobbing is good can **** off. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1436
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 14:57:00 -
[390] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Roime wrote: How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement.
I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors.
You should not be able to tank 2-3 of them, you should outplay them by kiting or seperating them long enough to get a kill. And whoever thinks gameplay that encourages blobbing is good can **** off. So, you basically think armor tanking should be removed as armor ships are not know for there agility and speed. that kiting modules use low slots which is the same place as armor resist mods, armor rep mods, and damage mods.
So as armor you should not be able to tank 2~3, you can't kite them well, and you can't out gun them.
So where should armor tanking lay then? Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 15:02:00 -
[391] - Quote
Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.
I have nothing against active tanks as such, as long as they are in a reasonable spectrum, but t2 resitances are a 33% buff or so over t1 hulls (before aplliying rigs and fits that boost that even further), + a 15% buff and either additional resitance boni or the 37.5% rep bonus some ships have in total result in to high amount of active tanks.
Where armour ships should be? Well they usually have better ehp/dps due to higher tanks then shield ships and make up for the slight loss of speed by having more mid slots to work with. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3249
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 16:49:00 -
[392] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Roime wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Heribeck Weathers wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote: *snip*
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.
I read this, then i read it again and laughed. First its liekly going to be a solo guy going out and fighting 2-3 people and finaly being able to tank them, being a buff to solo pvp, and do you even play eve? people are rarely "forced" into bringing blobs they do it because they are terible pilots that hide it in risk adverse gangs. So yeah your going to see just as many blobs as before. You don't seem to understand, if you can easily tank 2-3 of them, so can they. Meaning that you can't break a single tank alone, previously this wasn't the case as very few people have links, so high tanked setups were rare. Now every scrub can achieve high tanking amounts. Also yes, everything above a single player is a blob. How is this situation worse from current, where you cannot tank 2-3 of them? At least in the future people are more willing to upengage, fights last longer and require more micromanagement. I just had an awesome 1+links vs 2 all in Myrmidons, I died when my cap boosters ran out, but before that good times were had by all. Grinding through buffers is boring compared to fighting active tanks, and there's more room for piloting errors. You should not be able to tank 2-3 of them, you should outplay them by kiting or seperating them long enough to get a kill. And whoever thinks gameplay that encourages blobbing is good can **** off.
Why should you be able to kite 2-3 ships but not active tank them? Having more than one viable option to fight outnumbered is only good for the game. Embrace the variety!
Another recent fight I had in the Myrm was against a Cane- a standoff where he couldn't break me, and I couldn't get hard tackle on him. I like this kind of balance, only piloting skill or mistake would have resolved the fight, and not ship stats.
Kiting has been EVE on easy mode for ages, it's time to see other solutions viable on TQ.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
144
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 17:07:00 -
[393] - Quote
Cause unlike brawling ktiing takes skill? A kiter that only uses orbit/keep at range can easily be slingshotted.
A caught kiter is dead, a caught active tanker tanks forver, as does a kited one. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3249
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:02:00 -
[394] - Quote
Oh I should have guessed you are one of those who think that flying a faster ship means you have player skills.
Doubleclicking in space, the pinnacle of skills :D I do both, and winning by kiting is far easier and offers no real challenge, or risk.
Active tanking brawlers are always caught, you commit to the fight. And no, active tanks don't last forever, only until nanite/cap charges last.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:16:00 -
[395] - Quote
You really think that fights should be decided by cargo space? |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
154
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:43:00 -
[396] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.
Only if you forget that about 3/4 of the deadspace shield boosters are off-the-charts good compared to the other shield boosters or any of the deadspace armor reppers. Fighting is Magic |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
154
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:48:00 -
[397] - Quote
Roime wrote:
Why should you be able to kite 2-3 ships but not active tank them? Having more than one viable option to fight outnumbered is only good for the game. Embrace the variety!
Well, because its possible for 3 people to beat up one guy, but if that one guy can run super fast, it doesn't matter how many slow guys are chasing him, they won't get faster by having more numbers.
Or think about swords. two sword swords to not transform into a really long sword. Unless its anime. Fighting is Magic |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 18:51:00 -
[398] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote::
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
Shields will still be op while armor needs something more. +20% rep amount or +15% rep amount and -X% cap usage because i see it like this.
- you can easily put over sized shield rep and still have a great fit, buffing everything shield vise will only put shield tanking even more in front of armor tanking
- no change on asb's is good but still they dont use any cap and you can put more then one AND you can over size them, while armor uses both cap and charges and you can only put one (almost impossible to put over sized module as well)
- buffing AAR for 15% will not help that much because see previous statement (you can't really rely on just one)
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:07:00 -
[399] - Quote
Batelle wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.
Only if you forget that about 3/4 of the deadspace shield boosters are off-the-charts good compared to the other shield boosters or any of the deadspace armor reppers.
No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example). |
Tobias Hareka
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:15:00 -
[400] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example).
Centus A-Type LAR isn't better than Gist A-Type X-L booster. |
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1436
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:38:00 -
[401] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Batelle wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.
Only if you forget that about 3/4 of the deadspace shield boosters are off-the-charts good compared to the other shield boosters or any of the deadspace armor reppers. No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example). Tell that to the shield Brutix, the shield Talos, the shield thorax, and the shield Dominix. I am sure there are more. DED Complex Overhaul Idea - Ideas For Drone Improvement |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
145
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:49:00 -
[402] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example). Centus A-Type LAR isn't better than Gist A-Type X-L booster.
No on paper it isnt, but unlike shield reps you can easily dual rep a armour ship and armour rigs are vastly better then shield one (nano pump and co, not the resist ones)
To the guy who couldnt be bothered to understand the context, im talking about active tanking, not about buffer fits. |
Nagarythe Tinurandir
Tormented of Destiny The Kadeshi
139
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:15:00 -
[403] - Quote
Batelle wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:Active armour has no speed disadvantage to shield fits since the rig change.
Only if you forget that about 3/4 of the deadspace shield boosters are off-the-charts good compared to the other shield boosters or any of the deadspace armor reppers.
thats exacly why i think deadspace shield boosters should not be part of this buff.
|
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
154
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:24:00 -
[404] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:No shield fit is superior to a armour one. A t2 armour rep beats a t2 shield booster, a blinged out sarmour tank ebats the shield tank. And everything beats asbs (a dualrep incursus tanks more then a dual masb hawk for example). Centus A-Type LAR isn't better than Gist A-Type X-L booster. No on paper it isnt, but unlike shield reps you can easily dual rep a armour ship and armour rigs are vastly better then shield one (nano pump and co, not the resist ones)
the goodness of rigs or the ability to fit two reps vs a SBA has nothing to do it, because we're specifically talking about deadspace shield boosters, while those rigs are considered balanced and happen to affect every module. All the rigs perform the same regardless of whether its t1, t2, faction, or deadspace. So you can't point to armor rigs being powerful if we're saying that deadspace shield boosters are specifically out of whack. Also fitting a second armor rep doesn't address the cap use issue that everyone not using a gist or pithum booster faces.
Armor is simple and not broken. There is slight variation in the base activation cost and rep amount per cycle between sansha blood raider and serpentis versions, but they all follow the same principle of increasing boost amount 10% per level over the t2 version.
Armor t2 = 2hp/cap efficiency armor faciton = 2hp/cap efficiency (slightly faster) armor c-type = 2.2hp/cap efficiency (+10% over t2) b-type = +20% over t2 a-type = +30% over t2 X-type = +40% over t2
Shield is wierd. For t1, t2, faction, and pith L and X-L boosters, shield boosters follow the exact same "rules" as armor reps. All of the other versions are funky.
Shield: ALL t2 boosters : 1.5 hp/cap efficiency ALL faction: 1.5 hp/cap efficiency (10% faster cycle time)
Now it gets funky: Pith L and X-L: +10%/20/30/40 (to boost amount, boost per sec, and cap efficiency) model, by leaving cap use same, increasing boost amount at each higher tier. Pithi: Boost amount goes from 30hp per boost at t2 to 55 on the c-type (SAR goes from 80 at t2 to 88 at c-type, the 10% model) Same for pithum, starting at the C-type, the boost amount goes off teh charts, resulting in insane cap efficiency AND boosting speed. Hence PIthum A-type booster being one of the most valuable and useful mods in the game.
For all Gisti/Gistum, the activation cost drops by nearly half at the C-type and boost amount goes up slightly. As you go up the tiers activation cost increases slightly and boost amount goes up significantly. again resulting in absurd efficiency and excellent boost/second
For Gist L and X-L, boost amount at the C-type level starts slightly lower than T2 but again activation cost is nearly halved. The boost amount climbs significantly as you get higher tiers, and the activation cost increases slightly, again resulting in absurd efficiency and excellent boost/second
an a-type deadspace armor rep of any size is like 30% better than t2, while most a-type deadspace shield reps (save the Pith L and X-L) are like 80-150% better than t2.
It is not possible to actually look at these numbers and see 75% of the shield boosters as the numerical anomalies that they are. IMO either make half the armor reps stupidly awesome by giving them -40% cap use at the c-type level (serpentis ones), or bring the deadspace shield boosters in line with everything else. Or, if Fozzie doesn't want to rock the boat to hard, just take my suggestion and give the 15% buff to everything that doesn't say Gisti, Gistum, Gist, Pithi, or Pithum. Give Pith boosters the 15% bonus because they're actually in-line with armor mods.
Sorry for harping on this topic with multiple posts, but I feel like no one at CCP has actually looked at the numbers for these modules (sorry Fozzie, much love, but your version2 that gives different bonuses to DG/Domination boosters when they're already in-line, and not distinguishing the four separate groups of shield booster stat progression indicates you need to look at the numbers closer). Fighting is Magic |
Caleb Seremshur
Angel of War
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 21:58:00 -
[405] - Quote
What I'm not understanding is why CCP aren't just re-writing the boost numbers from scratch. Instead of adding some arbitrary percentage increase in their performance, scrap the idea and do them from the bottom up. Make a graph, chart performance metrics, speculate on drop rates and market sales estimates, re-work the meta levels and then release as a comprehensive set that is internally balanced against itself.
These % buffs/nerfs are just silly as they're not addressing whether the module is *broken*, only its relative performance to data that is probably by now out of date. Read my thread here for my thoughts on eve economy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=263968&find=unread Mining in game, from the perspective of an IRL miner. |
SOL Ranger
Jaeger Squadron
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 22:55:00 -
[406] - Quote
Boosters now and with added change in the proposal:
S GA [4.4hp/gj, 28hp/s, 6.5gj/s] No change S PA [3.8hp/gj, 38hp/s, 10gj/s] No change S T2/RF [1.5hp/gj, 15hp/s, 10gj/s] +15% [1.725hp/gj, 17.25hp/s, 10gj/s] S CN [1.5hp/gj, 18.75hp/s, 12.5gj/s] +5% [1.575hp/gj, 19.69hp/s, 12.5gj/s]
M GA [4.5hp/gj, 56.67hp/s, 12.67gj/s] No change M PA [3.8hp/gj, 76hp/s, 20gj/s] No change M T2/RF [1.5hp/gj, 30hp/s, 20gj/s] +15% [1.725hp/gj, 34.5hp/s, 20gj/s] M CN [1.5hp/gj, 37.5hp/s, 25gj/s] +5% [1.575hp/gj, 39.74hp/s, 25gj/s]
L GX [2.64hp/gj, 84.06hp/s, 31.88gj/s] +10% [2.90hp/gj, 92.47hp/s, 31.88gj/s] L PX [2.1hp/gj, 105hp/s, 50gj/s] +10% [2.31hp/s, 115.50hp/s, 50gj/s] L T2/RF [1.5hp/gj, 60hp/s, 40gj/s] +15% [1.725hp/gj, 69hp/s, 40gj/s] L CN [1.5hp/gj, 75hp/s, 50gj/s] +5% [1.575hp/gj, 78.75hp/s, 50gj/s]
XL GX [3.3hp/gj, 168hp/s, 51 gj/s] +10% [3.61hp/gj 184.8hp/s 51gj/s] XL PX [2.1hp/gj, 210hp/s, 100gj/s] +10% [2.31hp/gj, 231hp/s, 100gj/s] XL T2/RF [1.5hp/gj, 120hp/s, 80gj/s] +15% [1.725hp/gj, 138hp/s, 80gj/s] XL CN [1.5hp/gj, 150hp/s, 100gj/s] +5% [1.575hp/gj, 157.5hp/s, 100gj/s]
Some apparent issues in the list:
-Small CN 1.575hp/gj vs Small Gistii A-type 4.4hp/gj. A 280% efficiency over a faction module of same size. -Small T2 15hp/s vs. Small Pithii A-Type 38hp/s, a 253% effect over a T2 module of the same size. -Large deadspace modules utterly inferior in terms of efficiency compared to other sizes of deadspace boosters. -XL deadspace modules are quite inferior in terms of efficiency, especially the Pith XL. -The inefficiency with especially the T2/faction boosters is not justified, it hampers active tank fits in PvP alot and creates a niche environment where only booster bonus ships may effectively use them, and they still rather use ancillaries. - The inefficiency of SB and AR is why ancillaries are so prevalent along with the overwhelming Neut risks, especially in active shield tanking SB are quite weak in any sense, the massive cap dependency in active tanking which neuters almost every ship is over the top, especially for those who need capacitor to use their weapons and other modules; Active tanking becomes again very niche and somewhat only properly available for Minmatar, Caldari and some drone ships as a result. -The modules should vary in performance but lets be fair, the best boosters are way over the top compared to T2 and need to be balanced, either the rest go up or deadspace goes down, I prefer taking T2/faction up a notch, mostly in efficiency.
What I will do here is to categorise the boosters. T2 modules will be low effect high efficiency modules with high fitting costs. RF booster will be low effect high efficiency module with low fitting costs. CN booster will be high effect low efficiency module with low fitting costs. Gist will be high efficiency modules with low fitting costs. Pith will be high effect modules with high fitting costs.
In detail how I would like it to be, roughly:
S GA [4.33 hp/gj, 26hp/s, 6gj/s] S PA [3.8hp/gj, 38hp/s, 10gj/s] S T2/RF [2.8 hp/gj, 17.5hp/s, 6.25gj/s] S CN [2.5hp/gj, 20hp/s, 8gj/s]
M GA [4.17 hp/gj, 50hp/s, 12gj/s] M PA [3.6 hp/gj, 72hp/s, 20gj/s] M T2/RF [2.8hp/gj, 35hp/s, 12.5gj/s] M CN [2.5hp/gj, 40hp/s, 16gj/s]
L GX [4.0 hp/gj, 96hp/s, 24gj/s] L PX [3.4 hp/gj, 136hp/s, 40gj/s] L T2/RF [2.8hp/gj, 70hp/s, 25gj/s] L CN [2.5hp/gj, 80hp/s, 32gj/s]
XL GX [3.92 hp/gj, 188hp/s, 48 gj/s] XL PX [3.2 hp/gj, 256hp/s, 80gj/s] XL T2/RF [2.8hp/gj, 140hp/s, 50gj/s] XL CN [2.5 hp/gj, 160hp/s, 64gj/s]
The remaining models of Gist and Pith would gradually downgrade to above RF for gist and above CN for pith with a significant improvement in their respective areas of use, gist in efficiency, pith in effect, like so: L PX [3.4 hp/gj, 136hp/s, 40gj/s] L PA [3.2 hp/gj, 128hp/s, 40gj/s] L PB [3.0 hp/gj, 120hp/s, 40gj/s] L PC [2.8 hp/gj, 112hp/s, 40gj/s] <- The worst pith is still far more effective than the best gist. L CN [2.5 hp/gj, 80hp/s, 32gj/s] <- Notice the jump in hp/s and the small jump in efficiency from the worst deadspace pith to CN
L GX [4.00 hp/gj, 96hp/s, 24gj/s] L GA [3.91 hp/gj, 90hp/s, 23gj/s] L GB [3.86 hp/gj, 85hp/s, 22gj/s] L GC [3.81 hp/gj, 80hp/s, 21gj/s]<-The worst gist is still more efficient than the best pith. L RF [2.8 hp/gj, 70hp/s, 25gj/s]<- Notice the jump in efficiency and the small jump in effect from the worst deadspace gist to RF
This would essentially buff the efficiency of most of the boosters without radically altering their effective capabilities, with the exceptions of large and XL deadspace which need a substantial boost in their performance.
Solution key points: -The larger the module the more ineffective it becomes, however very gradually when compared to the current state. -The degradation in efficiency does not apply to T2/faction modules, thus the larger your ship is the better a faction or T2 booster will become relatively. -T2/Faction modules are more efficient compared to the current state and the current proposal I am responding to, effectively T2/RF going from 1.725HP/GJ(as proposed)to a whopping 2.8HP/GJ and the CN close behind with 2.5HP/GJ and will allow more players to use active tanks efficiently without the need to overly pimp their ships to do basic things. -Discrepancies in the booster effectiveness and efficiency have been hammered out and both large and XL deadspace modules are immensely more useful.
Final words:
I would do this for Armour repairers as well but I'm lazy but largely the same situation applies to them I reckon.
TL;DR
Booster efficiency is sub par on most levels, a mere 15% boost increase won't solve the problems of highly excessive cap drain, the cap costs must be lowered significantly and some other discrepancies should be hammered out in the deadspace line-ups, especially the large and XL.
|
Andy Landen
Battlestars Ex Cinere Scriptor
131
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:15:00 -
[407] - Quote
How about just merge ASB with shield booster and same for armor? Boosts more with capacitor booster charges like ASB, but otherwise operates like shield booster. Uses cap charges when the cap gets low or when a script is loaded. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
233
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 23:24:00 -
[408] - Quote
How come you removed the change for Capital ships? Why buff tanking for subcaps, but forget about regular sized caps?
Regular size Capital ships need some loving too, they are sandwiched between Subcaps and Supercaps.
Only regular caps use local reps, but even then they will melt fast. Heck local repping power doesn't matter if a Titan can press the I WIN Doomsday BUTTON and one shot you. |
Iome Ambraelle
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 01:01:00 -
[409] - Quote
Another drawback to the AAR line is the cost of operation. Here's the breakdown for what it costs to use one of these modules with lvl 5 skills and using Jita prices for paste:
MAAR Cycle: 9s Consumption: 4/cycle 1 minute/hour of repping: 400K/24M ISK
LAAR Cycle: 11.25s Consumption: 8/cycle 1 minute/hour of repping: 640K/38.4M ISK
And what you get for this investment at the L level is roughly a 7% advantage over Corpus X-Type or a 20% advantage over Core X-Type. After 1.5 minutes of repping (or wait for the 60 second reload timer) you end up with a 64%/60% disadvantage respectively. A single non-bonused rep eliminates the difference between the LAAR and Corpus with 4 non-bonused reps closing the gap for the Core variant. Of course the time to break even and the initial advantage widens when looking at lower tier deadspace modules but you get the picture.
At the current consumption rate, it only takes 10 hours of repping to equal the cost of the C-Type deadspace modules. If you only rep an average of 12 minutes every hour (let's say running missions) you spend 5 hours of game time for 1 hour of repping. We're only talking 50 hours of play time before you start to break even versus the deadspace versions. |
raawe
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:32:00 -
[410] - Quote
Cost is also problem with rep paste (AAR) but i'm leaning more towards buffing AAR some more to justify it's rep cost. If only one module is allowed it should at least be comparable to ASB's |
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
164
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:43:00 -
[411] - Quote
Iome Ambraelle wrote:Another drawback to the AAR line is the cost of operation. Here's the breakdown for what it costs to use one of these modules with lvl 5 skills and using Jita prices for paste:
MAAR Cycle: 9s Consumption: 4/cycle 1 minute/hour of repping: 400K/24M ISK
LAAR Cycle: 11.25s Consumption: 8/cycle 1 minute/hour of repping: 640K/38.4M ISK
And what you get for this investment at the L level is roughly a 7% advantage over Corpus X-Type or a 20% advantage over Core X-Type. After 1.5 minutes of repping (or wait for the 60 second reload timer) you end up with a 64%/60% disadvantage respectively. A single non-bonused rep eliminates the difference between the LAAR and Corpus with 4 non-bonused reps closing the gap for the Core variant. Of course the time to break even and the initial advantage widens when looking at lower tier deadspace modules but you get the picture.
At the current consumption rate, it only takes 10 hours of repping to equal the cost of the C-Type deadspace modules. If you only rep an average of 12 minutes every hour (let's say running missions) you spend 5 hours of game time for 1 hour of repping. We're only talking 50 hours of play time before you start to break even versus the deadspace versions.
It is a burst tank PVP module. Spending 400k in order to win a fight In your 40-50mil fully fit cruiser is worth it. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
164
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:01:00 -
[412] - Quote
raawe wrote:Cost is also problem with rep paste (AAR) but i'm leaning more towards buffing AAR some more to justify it's rep cost. If only one module is allowed it should at least be comparable to ASB's
It is important to look at a range of modules when comparing armour and shield. At frigate level things are currently very well balanced MASB has much higher fittings than a SAAR and therefore I would compare it to SAAR plus nano pumps. This 15% boost does concern me as it may throw the balance out.
I would say small reppers/medium shield boosters were fine or certainly only need 5-10% buffs. I would also probably buff small non dead space shield boosters by the upper amount including SASB.
Medium reppers however probably could be buffed by 20% as they have to compete with bigger plates and boosters.
Again at large level reppers lag behind XL boosters especially the ASB. 15% here seems fine with less for shield and no ASB changes. |
Sigras
Conglomo
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:14:00 -
[413] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:How come you removed the change for Capital ships? Why buff tanking for subcaps, but forget about regular sized caps?
Regular size Capital ships need some loving too, they are sandwiched between Subcaps and Supercaps.
Only regular caps use local reps, but even then they will melt fast. Heck local repping power doesn't matter if a Titan can press the I WIN Doomsday BUTTON and one shot you.
The Wolf-Rayet and Pulsar Issue is not a problem imo at all.
Wolf-Rayet increases resists, but at the same time makes ship sig radius smaller, which makes its harder for capitals to hurt subcaps and subcaps get that bonus as well. Subcaps benefit more from a wolf-rayet than a capital ship does, since a capital ship still has a huge sig radius when inside a wolf-rayet. Allow me to introduce you to the triage archon . . .
Soon Shin wrote:Pulsar only increases shield HP and capacitor recharge rate, the amount of dps required to break through the active tank has not changed. again, im going to point to the triage archon . . . Mine has a 30,000 DPS tank when fit to be able to last through an entire triage cycle; I can easily get a 50,000 DPS burst tank, but the extra cap recharge makes that not a burst tank . . . |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
148
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 10:30:00 -
[414] - Quote
SOL Ranger wrote:A splendid post.
From just rushing over those numbers, it appears to me that some progressions are odd, mostly
small SB, B-types to A-types is a giant leap, looks as if A-type would be way out of line. For larges, B to A is quite a leap, A to X is another level of leap.
While deadspace armor repairers scale more smoothly.
I certainly am thankful for those surprisingly useful A-types, however shouldn't such a progression be found amongst armor reppers aswell, or not at all?
Also, going for remote repair arrays - you normally can choose between the meta IV variation with slower cap-to-hp conversion, or the T2 version, which cycles a little faster and burns out a tad faster. Would love to see the cycle of T2-SB reduced, along with altered cap consumption/shield restoration, to yield a faster cycling, more heat-sensitive kind of booster. As of now, the lower cycletimes are (afaik) restricted to meta-7+ modules. Would really like the T2 ones to be the fastest reacting ones, that are also the most sensible. I only correct my own spelling. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
157
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 14:44:00 -
[415] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:SOL Ranger wrote:A splendid post.
From just rushing over those numbers, it appears to me that some progressions are odd, mostly small SB, B-types to A-types is a giant leap, looks as if A-type would be way out of line. For larges, B to A is quite a leap, A to X is another level of leap. While deadspace armor repairers scale more smoothly. I certainly am thankful for those surprisingly useful A-types, however shouldn't such a progression be found amongst armor reppers aswell, or not at all?
The "giant leap" occurs between t2/faction and the C-type level, for all angel deadspace boosters, and small/medium gurista deadspace boosters. Fighting is Magic |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1121
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:48:00 -
[416] - Quote
raawe wrote:Cost is also problem with rep paste (AAR) but i'm leaning more towards buffing AAR some more to justify it's rep cost. If only one module is allowed it should at least be comparable to ASB's
Add insult to injury: still uses cap while boosting with nanites *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1121
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:58:00 -
[417] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:So where should armor tanking lay then?
"Should" is what many are exposing here with numbers etc but not ready to happen. This leads to the silliness or armor ships shield fitting, and no one either wants to discuss seriously about it or thinks it's a mart move by doing so when it clearly shows it's not a smart thinking but the only choice to make those armor setups viable.
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1437
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 16:59:00 -
[418] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:raawe wrote:Cost is also problem with rep paste (AAR) but i'm leaning more towards buffing AAR some more to justify it's rep cost. If only one module is allowed it should at least be comparable to ASB's Add insult to injury: still uses cap while boosting with nanites I more look at it, Add insult to injury: still requires cap booster to manage cap needs, while burning up nanite paste. DED Complex Overhaul Idea - Ideas For Drone Improvement |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1121
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:37:00 -
[419] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:raawe wrote:Cost is also problem with rep paste (AAR) but i'm leaning more towards buffing AAR some more to justify it's rep cost. If only one module is allowed it should at least be comparable to ASB's Add insult to injury: still uses cap while boosting with nanites I more look at it, Add insult to injury: still requires cap booster to manage cap needs, while burning up nanite paste.
Yep
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 17:56:00 -
[420] - Quote
I would prefer if the AAR added soem base HP to a ship equivilant to alittle over a 100mm plate for small, 400 plate for med, or 800 plate for large with no mas increase. would make it diferant.
Or if it some how had a small 15hp per second armor repair time when the mod is turned off, kinda like its a nanite repair hive but when activated it causes the nanites to overload themselves in rapir repairs which causes them to be expended. |
|
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Trifectas Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 23:08:00 -
[421] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps
Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we.
Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow.
Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward.
Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone.
Frustrating. |
Psychoactive Stimulant
TinklePee
26
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 03:11:00 -
[422] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating.
Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:19:00 -
[423] - Quote
Nice changes so far!
But here I am still standing by my point that medium and large armor reps need to loose 50% capacitor activation cost and 33% cycle time.
Note here: A 50% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle is only for the case that the cycle times of medium and large reps go down by 33%. If not a 25% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle should be fine.
So far I cannot see anything wrong with the capacitor cost and cycle times on small armor reps but correct me if I'm wrong.
A general buff in repair power of shield boosters and armor reps is always welcome since the the amount of damage on the field has increased by a ton.
Proceed
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Xequecal
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 15:52:00 -
[424] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Nice changes so far!
But here I am still standing by my point that medium and large armor reps need to loose 50% capacitor activation cost and 33% cycle time.
Note here: A 50% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle is only for the case that the cycle times of medium and large reps go down by 33%. If not a 25% reduction in capacitor cost / cycle should be fine.
So far I cannot see anything wrong with the capacitor cost and cycle times on small armor reps but correct me if I'm wrong.
A general buff in repair power of shield boosters and armor reps is always welcome since the the amount of damage on the field has increased by a ton.
Proceed
Seriously? Do people even think about this stuff before posting it? I'm going to go enjoy my 4000 DPS tank on my strategic cruiser. |
TehCloud
Carnivore Company 24eme Legion Etrangere
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 17:59:00 -
[425] - Quote
Can't really see why Deadspace Large and X-Large Shield Boosts get a 10% increase. 5 or maybe 7.5 should be more than enough imho.
The 15% on the AAR make the module way more attractive, but I fear that this might even be a little bit too much.
Time will tell.
My Condor costs less than that module! |
HeXxploiT
Big Diggers Trifectas Syndicate
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 18:45:00 -
[426] - Quote
Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating. Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way.
I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..
Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.
CCP you want tears? You got'em. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
112
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:35:00 -
[427] - Quote
These are excellent changes, and will really have an impact on active-tanked battleships (as they should). The small and medium Deadspace boosters are super-efficient and don't need any buffs. I honestly don't know what people are complaining about with a nerf... |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
342
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:30:00 -
[428] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok, update to the plan.
We're adjusting the buff to some forms of shield boosters (CN/DG, Large and X-L deadspace/officer) We're also exempting capital reps and boosters from this change for now until we've dealt with Pulsar and Wolf Rayet bonuses. ASBs still not getting changed.
New version of the changelist:
Increase the rep amount for all subcap armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5% No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Let us know what you think!
Not commenting on shields at all.
You're still not addressing any of the problems that armor actually has. I'm not going to complain one bit about the 15% boost, but that's not where the problems lie.
As I mentioned before, in PVP the problem is that the rep doesn't occur until the end of the cycle. This is not in itself a problem, it makes armor tankers think ahead more while shields are more reactive. As a trade off for the increased fitting and cap efficiency of armor, thats fine with me. But the cycle length is far too long. 12 seconds (medium t2 rep) is enough time for a battlecruiser to go from untargeted to pod. The core mechanics of the module mean that it won't be used over plates.
Where is armor repping used in pvp? On frigates, where the cycle is 3-4 seconds after skills. This is not a coincidence. Until the cycle delay is addressed, armor pvp fits will not change notably. Cut the delay in half, and adjust the HP and Cap per second to match. Then we can see if total rep amount is a problem or not.
In addition, the AAR has far too much downtime compared to it's uptime. 20-odd seconds (too lazy too look up numbers atm) of boosted reps followed 60 seconds of no reps at all is pretty crap. The only time I ever use them is in dual rep fits, and the only time I ever dual rep a pvp ship is with a heavy tackle Vengeance. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Doed
Tyrfing Industries Viro Mors Non Est
32
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 21:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating.
Yeah, you totally spent a year on farming your Gistum A-type Medium Shield Booster. I have news for you. and it's related to you being bad.
If you're whining because your hilariously OP small/med pithum/gistum(pithi/Gistii) didn't get buffed(they should actually have been nerfed aeons ago) you should just quit this game.
Edit : Make DG/CN boosters 15% aswell, at very least 10% |
auraofblade
Kid's Logistics Inc Moose Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 02:04:00 -
[430] - Quote
I'm a bit worried about Pith boosters since those are effectively Booster+ and doing a relative nerf to them is a rather direct nerf to their niche.
Gist boosters, on the other hand, are primarily cap efficient so the nerf won't be nearly as damaging, just because a Gist can still be left on autorepeat with relative ease. |
|
Whitehound
1805
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 13:35:00 -
[431] - Quote
Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps?
I still believe that a bonus such as "+7.5% bonus to local and received armor repair amount per level" will allow these ships to compete better with ships that get bonuses to resistances.
I agree that a bonus to only the local armor repair or shield boost amount will help in shifting around the numbers in CCP's ship statistic if this is the goal of the change, but I do not see how it addresses the source of the problem, which is the competitiveness with other hulls. These ships with bonuses to active tanking will still only be used in small gangs. What makes it worse is that active tanking will become more dominant for small gangs and thereby only destroys the choice and the variety of ships just like the resistance bonuses have destroyed the choice and variety of ships for large fleets. It is like you are dividing the ships into two new roles, one being a small gang role and the other a large fleet role and leaving the players with less choices. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 14:44:00 -
[432] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps?
Remember how all the brain dead gallente pilots whined that shield resist affected active tanking setups (although not as well as a repping bonus)? You now want ships with rep bonus to be the strictly superior ship in 99% of scenarios. Think for a minute about just how stupid that (and by extension, you) really is. |
Whitehound
1805
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 15:46:00 -
[433] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Whitehound wrote:Why did you not decide to extend the ship bonuses to active tanking to include a bonus to the amount of received remote reps? Remember how all the brain dead gallente pilots whined that shield resist affected active tanking setups (although not as well as a repping bonus)? You now want ships with rep bonus to be the strictly superior ship in 99% of scenarios. Think for a minute about just how stupid that (and by extension, you) really is. No, and please do not label others as brain dead and stupid, but think about it yourself. You seem to forget or to ignore the meaning of the bonuses with regards to small gang and fleet warfare. Increased resistances lower the amount of incoming damage and so reduces the amount of armor repairs or shield boosts needed. These bonuses further increase the effective hitpoints of a ship, which then gives logistics more time to respond. As such are bonuses to resistances always superior for large fleets. Bonuses to local reps do nothing similar, but are irrelevant to large fleet fights. Resistance bonuses can work for solo PvP and small gang PvP in a same way as the bonuses to active tanking do, but after the resistance bonuses have previously been lowered to 4% and active tanking now receiving further increases will it polarize the ships only more in that active tanking bonuses become dominate for solo and small gang PvP, whereas resistance bonuses will continue to be the only option for large fleets. The idea of adding a bonus to the amount of received reps is also rather old and I would like to know from CCP why they have decided against it and to make active local tanks as dominant as is proposed and why they do not want to do anything for fleet fights. Further, bonuses to active local tanks practically demand that every setup requires either an ASB or an AAR or else it becomes a failfit. These bonuses leave one no choice but to always require an active local tank fitted onto these ships and so destroy the freedom of fitting choices. Boosting these bonuses is making this only worse. Please remember that with resistance bonuses one still has the freedom to decide if one wants to fit an active or a passive tank. This is why I say that with these bonuses and the newly proposed changes to them will the ships be split into two roles and thereby the choice of ships itself is being dictated by CCP and is not left as a choice to be made by the players. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 00:25:00 -
[434] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..
Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.
CCP you want tears? You got'em.
You have trained for 3 years for a single ship to *START* PVP'ing? WTF takes 3 years to start PVPing with?
wow.
You realize the meta shifts over time, even without CCP tweaking things, right?
I think it's awesome that you wasted 3 years. |
Lynx Sawpaw
Explorer Corps Disavowed.
14
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 02:15:00 -
[435] - Quote
I am sad capital boosters/reps aren't being touched. I don't think capital reps are in a bad spot to begin with so i understand why they aren't being included now, but I'm just disappointed i cant cackle like a maniac as i face tank a fist of moros in my archon. |
Castelo Selva
Selva Brasil Moon Warriors
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 11:44:00 -
[436] - Quote
OK, I think I am a bit GÇ£dumbGÇ¥.. After all boost, nerf, boost again, I am lost.
Is it possible to make a spread sheet listing the armor repair / shield booster name and the old / new amount?
I think that will be incredible easy for the people to understand what is going on.
Thank you Fozzie for your hard work with balance stuffs.
Castelo |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1125
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 11:57:00 -
[437] - Quote
Xequecal wrote:Seriously? Do people even think about this stuff before posting it? I'm going to go enjoy my 4000 DPS tank on my strategic cruiser.
Loki/Tengu for sure you can, even with a medium Pithum A-type and "elite pvp skills/implants/booster" you get already 1100 so 4K fitting a large one is not hard already, Proteus/Legion 4k active tank?- no way. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Heribeck Weathers
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 14:54:00 -
[438] - Quote
Gospadin wrote:HeXxploiT wrote:I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last..
Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts.
CCP you want tears? You got'em. You have trained for 3 years for a single ship to *START* PVP'ing? WTF takes 3 years to start PVPing with? wow. You realize the meta shifts over time, even without CCP tweaking things, right? I think it's awesome that you wasted 3 years.
Best Part is that its still not a nerf to his so called plan, it will still tank the same, it just wont be quite as amazing tank number over other bosters as it was before, but the targets he was planning on killing are likely still going to be fit the same and he will tank the same so there is really no nerf. But the tears sure are sweet. |
The Djego
Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
143
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:14:00 -
[439] - Quote
Since you are already at the modules, a few need a helping hand.
The Domination\Republic fleet boosters\armor reppers offer very little in performance gain over the meta 4 or T2 ones. Could you consider to:
A:
Knock off 10-20% of the CPU and power grid requirements for the fitting, to make them more attractive on Cruisers/BCs/HACs and T3 or on thigh BS fittings like the fleet phoon?
or
B:
Reduce her cap use by another 10%, to make them more attractive for a her cap efficiency, similar to gist stuff?
Similar things are true for other domination\republic fleet tanking mods:
Domination Invulnerably field:
25% to all resists, 34 cpu, 1.3 cap/s
Caldari Navy Invulnerable Field:
37.5% to all resists, 27 cpu, 3.3 cap/s
Suggestion: Give the Domination at least 30% resists and cut down the CPU use to 20-25 points.
Similar stuff is true for the armor hardeners:
Domination Explosive Armor Hardener(stats are similar for republic fleet):
50% resist, 33 CPU, 0.5 cap/s
Imperial Navy Armor Hardener(stats are similar for the rest):
55% resists 16 CPU, 1.5 cap/s
Suggestion: Give the domination\Republic fleet also 55% and reduce the cpu use to 20-25 points, since CPU is the main reason why faction armor hardeners are used.
The hole line of domination\republic fleet tanking mods needs a few adjustments to become useful compared to the other faction mods. Improve discharge rigging: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=246166&find=unread
|
Keith Planck
League of Extraordinary Equines Disciples of Vectron
517
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 18:26:00 -
[440] - Quote
I significantly approve of this new list. |
|
Ubat Batuk
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:33:00 -
[441] - Quote
Trade boosting with local rep? As if they were related. Then you can just remove the boosting and scrap command ships. |
Job Valador
Super Moose Defence Force
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:41:00 -
[442] - Quote
HeXxploiT wrote:Psychoactive Stimulant wrote:HeXxploiT wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No change to Small/Medium Deadspace boosters, all sizes of ASBs, Capital boosters, Capital reps Oh let's just leave out a couple of modules why don't we. Well I'll tell you what some of these changes are beginning to frustrate in a big way. When you've worked for years to build a particular ship with an end goal and ccp suddenly turns and make such changes you can really mess up a persons plan. I used to think I'd be playing eve for many more years but I no longer have faith that the plans I make today will be worth a **** tomorrow. Otherwise why don't you just stick us all in drakes with lvl 3 skills 6 launchers and a tech 1 medium shield booster. Then everyone can be equal. The downside of having a quality module is that in order to gain an advantage one must RISK it. The balance IS IN the risk vs reward. Stop trying to make every damn thing equal and just leave the reps alone. Frustrating. Did you get nerfed or something? How did they hurt you? You sound like you were nerfed, but I can't seem to find anything in the OP that could possibly hurt you in any way. I have trained for 3 years to fly a specific ship and have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours figuring out what works. Through my time, diligence and hard work I have created a phenomenal pvp boat. I am only now after 3 years getting to the point trainingwise where I am prepared to start solo pvping and reaping the benefits of all my diligence. With this change to shield boosters and armor reppers and weakoning officer modules it will give all other individual pilots and small groups a 20% free bonus advantage over me. You'll excuse the generalizations but I have worked long and hard to get where i'm at and now it doesn't look like I have much time left before my dreams are shot so I want to keep my secrets while they last.. Yeah this nerfs me...weakening the officer modules nerfs me bigtime and it hurts. CCP you want tears? You got'em.
I am awaiting the contract with all of your stuff "The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement." |
Galmas
United System's Commonwealth R.E.P.O.
113
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:02:00 -
[443] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:XXSketchxx wrote:Will these changes affect capital reps? I know you don't say they won't, just want to make sure we're on the same page.
Cause this could have an interesting effect on combat triage. They will affect local capital reps, yes.
Cant really follow you there. Doesnt the OP say "No change to ... Capital reps" ? |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
343
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:25:00 -
[444] - Quote
While you're checking out modules, take a look at the faction medium armor reps. Some of them offer nothing more then easier fitting over t2, and some of them are actually worse (republic fleet i'm looking at you.) Give the underdogs better cap efficiency or lower fitting or something to make them worth existing. - Mission Overhaul - Bridging the PVP / PVE Gap - -áIf the game stops teaching people to fear lowsec, maybe people will start going there? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 05:40:00 -
[445] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:can somebody please explain to me why suddenly deadspace shieldboosters need also a buff? i thought the initial change was aimed at making active armor repping more viable and reducing the (crazy) gap between deadspace boosters and lesser modules.
buffing across the board just looks like horrific power-creep... I'd say what you're looking at is CCP trying to encourage people switching to active tanking outside of big fleets because active tanks are weaker by nature. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: active tanks die to alpha and are weaker to neuts or high dps. Buffer tanking will always be preferable to active tanking for any situation where dps can be spared for logi. I would expect nerfs to remote repairing to come before the year is over. It makes sense if they're trying to weaken blob tactics by reducing their buffer hp, their links and finishing the process by nerfing remote reps probably by making logi ships incapable of cap stability it's not to make small gangs more attractive against large fleets. large fleets are here to stay simply because having more numbers always gives you an advantage.
When it comes to large numbers of people, you will always have certain people specializing in a certain field. thats how things work, it's more efficient.
these changes just make active tank more usable compared to buffer between small scale engagement gangs. has almost no effect on large scale fleets. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 06:40:00 -
[446] - Quote
Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. dont forget the other aspects of shield boosters. A X-Large T2 booster only gets 600 hp for 400GJ while a T2 Large Armor Repairer get 800 hp and 400GJ.
Armor has 1.5 cap/hp ratio while shields have 2.0.
And if your going to compare an ASB to anything do it against the AAR:
The Large Ancillary Armor Repairer does 1350hp for 400GJ (assuming nanites loaded) and does it for 8 cycles (120 seconds)
The X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster does 980hp for 0GJ (again assuming cap charges loaded) and using cap booster 400 does it for 7 cycles (35 seconds)
AAR repairs 10800hp total (90hp/s) ASB boosts 6860hp total (196hp/s)
So, the shield ship becomes vulnerable within 35 seconds. it's not a matter of 1 being more powerful than the other, it's all reliant on playstyle. armor is more passive and drawn out while shield is quick and fast. With an ASB fit shield ship your hope is to kill the enemy before you run out of cap boosters. With armor, you hope to outlast the enemy and use your utility mid slots to keep him where you need him until he has exhausted his options and is vulnerable.
AS for fittings, it's an opposing situation, Armor needs more PG while shield requires more CPU. Shield fits require more cpu than armor and vice a versa. Along with generally higher resists armor also has the option of the 1600mm plate where shields do not have a similar option.
It's all about playstyle.
But the main reason shields have a X-Large booster is because armor has a 1600mm plate, which gives almost 2x as much hp as Large shield extender. |
Diana Kim
State Protectorate Caldari State
514
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 19:36:00 -
[447] - Quote
Bad idea IMHO. Some ships are already quite hard to kill, for example, it took me ~10 minutes to kill an incursus with rocket hookbill. Imagine if it had links... and this 15% booster. It will be way harder to fight for solo pilots, because you would need both dps and neuts to break such tanks. |
Kallie Rae
NorCorp Security Tribal Band
40
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 22:40:00 -
[448] - Quote
Are all these changes on SISI now? Am not 100% sure, but it looks like the Ancillary Armor Repairer is worse off than the T2 variant now with nanite paste loaded? At least according to the number in the fitting window. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:03:00 -
[449] - Quote
Diana Kim wrote:Bad idea IMHO. Some ships are already quite hard to kill, for example, it took me ~10 minutes to kill an incursus with rocket hookbill. Imagine if it had links... and this 15% booster. It will be way harder to fight for solo pilots, because you would need both dps and neuts to break such tanks.
rockets have pitiful dps really.. but more importantly how come it took ten minutes to kill it and you never died and he never got away? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Linna Excel
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
196
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:13:00 -
[450] - Quote
Wait... armor reppers are weaker than shield boosters so you are nerfing them?
CCP please. I can has blogging skills! |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
682
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:31:00 -
[451] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Cpt Boomstick wrote:Given that armor doesn't have an "extra large" repairer, and shield users not only have them but have ways to fit them on medium size ships, this creates a gap in performance of local tank. A single extra large ancillary shield booster out reps a triple rep myrmidon. The fact that players have to put 3x repairers on a ship bonused for repairing should tell you something, there needs to be a 4th tier of armor repairer that isn't capital size, and the grid requirements of the current large armor repairer needs reduced. If both shield and armor repairing ability is increaed at the exact same amount, this doesnt fix the current gap. It maintains the gap exactly. dont forget the other aspects of shield boosters. A X-Large T2 booster only gets 600 hp for 400GJ while a T2 Large Armor Repairer get 800 hp and 400GJ. Armor has 1.5 cap/hp ratio while shields have 2.0. And if your going to compare an ASB to anything do it against the AAR: The Large Ancillary Armor Repairer does 1350hp for 400GJ (assuming nanites loaded) and does it for 8 cycles (120 seconds) The X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster does 980hp for 0GJ (again assuming cap charges loaded) and using cap booster 400 does it for 7 cycles (35 seconds) AAR repairs 10800hp total (90hp/s) ASB boosts 6860hp total (196hp/s) So, the shield ship becomes vulnerable within 35 seconds. it's not a matter of 1 being more powerful than the other, it's all reliant on playstyle. armor is more passive and drawn out while shield is quick and fast. With an ASB fit shield ship your hope is to kill the enemy before you run out of cap boosters. With armor, you hope to outlast the enemy and use your utility mid slots to keep him where you need him until he has exhausted his options and is vulnerable. AS for fittings, it's an opposing situation, Armor needs more PG while shield requires more CPU. Shield fits require more cpu than armor and vice a versa. Along with generally higher resists armor also has the option of the 1600mm plate where shields do not have a similar option. It's all about playstyle. But the main reason shields have a X-Large booster is because armor has a 1600mm plate, which gives almost 2x as much hp as Large shield extender. The issue with the playstyle argument is that the low DPS tankable of the AAR means that one style is far more limited in it's upper bound, while the AAR can simply pulse reps in lower DPS scenarios and extend it's operational time before reload. This allows a shield ship to operate just fine in an armor ships range with a bit of attention but the armor ships can't do the same or reasonably upgrade to larger mods. I don't think there can be a reasonable argument, even from a situational standpoint, made to support the idea of the AAR and ASB being equal. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
94
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 00:03:00 -
[452] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue with the playstyle argument is that the low DPS tankable of the AAR means that one style is far more limited in it's upper bound, while the AAR can simply pulse reps in lower DPS scenarios and extend it's operational time before reload. This allows a shield ship to operate just fine in an armor ships range with a bit of attention but the armor ships can't do the same or reasonably upgrade to larger mods. I don't think there can be a reasonable argument, even from a situational standpoint, made to support the idea of the AAR and ASB being equal. thats sort of the trade off i'm trying to show. ARmor and Shield fits seem to appose each other in function. For every benefit/hinderance Armor has Shield has an opposing one.
Few examples:
Armor
Advantages Larger buffers (1600mm plates) Higher base resists (10% racial) No signature radius penalty more capacitor efficient repairs Low slots - extra utility mids Modules use less CPU
Disadvantages Mass addition - slower/less agility No passive recharge slower repair rate/end of cycle Low slots - less dps mods Modules use more PG
Shield
Advantages Higher agility/speed Faster active repair passive recharge Mid slots - more dps low slots Modules use less PG
Disadvantages Smaller buffers Lower base resists signature radius penaltys High Shield boost cap demand Mid slots - less utility mods Modules use more CPU
Each one does certain things better than the other and certain things worse. Each has its own penalties and benefits, and for the most part neither of them has a penalty that the other cant match in another form.
And for the most part this is good. Or else we end up with a very homogenized defense systems. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
117
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 02:10:00 -
[453] - Quote
Rowells wrote: Shield
Advantages Higher agility/speed Faster active repair passive recharge Mid slots - more dps low slots Modules use less PG
You forgot a few: 1. Ability to increase overall resists through overheating of one invulnerability field. 2. gist local shield reps have 200% the capacitor efficiency of the most efficient armour reps. 3. Crystal implants are available to increase shield booster power and efficiency. No such pirate implants exist for armour. 3. Ability to fit battleship sized modules on battlecruisers and cruisers.
+15% to local reps is an excellent change. The fact that archons will uber tank is not important. You don't kill archons with DPS, you kill them with neutralisers.
|
seth Hendar
I love you miners
164
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 12:52:00 -
[454] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15% These numbers should have been: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 20% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 10% That might not fix everything, but it would be a good start. The AAR did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing TEs did not fix armor tanking. Nerfing resist bonuses did not fix armor tanking. The ASB made active armor suck even harder next to active shields. You have wasted months on all these gimmicks and silly, backhanded, irrelevant tweaks. But you still haven't actually done anything to make active armor tanking viable next to active shield tanking. It's time to stop playing games and get back to basics: Do the hard work of rebalancing the core, fundamental mechanics of armor and shield active tanking. this.
i don't know what's in your mind at CCP, but since january, you are doing crap over crap to eve.
are you trying to kill it (this is a serious question)?
servers are more and more buggy, laggy etc... => you on't give a F
new launcher => doesn't improve anything, made using more than one account a nightmare, and i don't even speak about the bugs
odyssey: increase cost of all the things (ice + BS), delete exploration from the game, introduce **** tones of bugs
and now, you are just doing silly stuff, avoiding to address the really issues, like with this thing.
the whole active tanking need rethinking, not just this (failed) polish
the whole drone need rethinking, not a (failed) polish
the whole UI need rethinking, and some issues adressed, not a failed "we add MORE radial and ignore all the rest (sensor overlay crap anyone?)" the unified inventory is STILL NOT able to perform as efficiently as the old one!
the ship re balance is not all good and need more look, like for the matars, wtf where you thinking with this missile boats? and the hurricane?
and what about this wasted time breaking things that worked well, like the jump animation, or fixing stuff that no one cares about like hose industrial ships?
what we care about:
sensor overlay not really turning off active tanking unbalance between shield & armor sound bugs (50% of the time there is no sound at all) launcher not working (like NEVER working => get rid of it) jump animation cannot be turned OFF server not registering some events gas cloud killing the FPS fleet boost not always working (not talking about ogb here, just regular fleet / wing /squad boost) environment hitbox are silly big (stations, roids etc.....) bring exploration back.
i strongly suggest the next expansion focused on FIXING those things, then we will talk about actually improving / adding content to the game, but first, please fix the mess you did those last 6 month.
thank you
|
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Initiative
334
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:06:00 -
[455] - Quote
+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) Proud CEO of Heretic Army and loyal servent to Mother Amamake. COME AT ME BRO! Forums: http://forum.heretic-army.biz/index.php-á Killboard: http://kb.heretic-army.biz/ Follow me on twitter @KarlPlanck |
Wooden Spoon
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:16:00 -
[456] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Whine Whine Whine Whine, Cry Cry Cry.
Wow... just wow. I think if I had taken the time to write that... whatever it was, I would at least kept it on topic.
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.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:55:00 -
[457] - 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
|
Alystin Wyndyl
Night's Shadows Dark Souls.
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:37:00 -
[458] - Quote
There's lots of pluses and minuses with this change. But I think Fozzie, you need to just go on SIsi and use the compare tool and see what to me is a glaring error on shield boosters.
As you go up in Meta level, by the very nature, there should be a gain of some sort over a lower meta level. Some changes are subtle, but they are always there. But I think with the buffing of certain groups of shield boosters more than others, you've destroyed the balance.
Look at T2 Large Shield Boosters vs Gread Gurista/Caldari Navy ones. Used to be, they repped the same, but the DG/CN ones had easier fitting. That was warranted. After all, CN/DG are 4 meta levels higher than a T2. Now, on Sisi, they still have the same fitting, same cap use, but they rep 26 less than the T2 per cycle. Where has the value gone? I could expect that possibly from a meta 7 or 8 module, but these are meta 9. They should be clearly better and they are not anymore.
I think you may be looking at buffing the less powerful boosters to help balance against the more OP, and more powerful higher meta ones. But be careful you don't destroy the value of your meta system. I would suggest looking at individual cases, and doing a pass to make sure the progression of each size of booster in rep amount, cap use, fitting, and meta level make sense, and tweak individual modules, rather than doing sweeping across the board changes with different percentages.
|
Akturous
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
221
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:44:00 -
[459] - Quote
Seriously, you changed it so deadspace boosters are getting twice the buff of DG? What the hell happened? Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:28:00 -
[460] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships.
The additional 15% is to compensate for the loss of resistance bonus form warfare links, with links applied it puts them in the same (or extremely close) position as they were before. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
864
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 17:26:00 -
[461] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships.
The additional 15% is to compensate for the loss of resistance bonus form warfare links, with links applied it puts them in the same (or extremely close) position as they were before.
Legion-boosted Gallente active-repped ships were broken.
Given how different buffer fits scale compared to active-repped fits with encounter size, all active rep bonuses should just be removed from the game. Gallente hulls would still often use armor reps because it lets them maintain their speed, but when fights escalated beyond the size where local active reps are useful these hulls would switch to buffer rather than being completely trash. |
Kami3k
The Lucky Bible Company
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 22:52:00 -
[462] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships.
The additional 15% is to compensate for the loss of resistance bonus form warfare links, with links applied it puts them in the same (or extremely close) position as they were before. Legion-boosted Gallente active-repped ships were broken. Given how different buffer fits scale compared to active-repped fits with encounter size, all active rep bonuses should just be removed from the game. Gallente hulls would still often use armor reps because it lets them maintain their speed, but when fights escalated beyond the size where local active reps are useful these hulls would switch to buffer rather than being completely trash.
Not everything in the game happens in a large fleet. |
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
167
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 02:27:00 -
[463] - Quote
Kami3k wrote:Kahega Amielden wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Veshta Yoshida wrote: The additional 15% breaks pretty much the entire Gallente repair line of ships.
The additional 15% is to compensate for the loss of resistance bonus form warfare links, with links applied it puts them in the same (or extremely close) position as they were before. Legion-boosted Gallente active-repped ships were broken. Given how different buffer fits scale compared to active-repped fits with encounter size, all active rep bonuses should just be removed from the game. Gallente hulls would still often use armor reps because it lets them maintain their speed, but when fights escalated beyond the size where local active reps are useful these hulls would switch to buffer rather than being completely trash. Not everything in the game happens in a large fleet.
You have logis even in small fleets, all rep boni (bar maybe on frigs) are dumb and shouldnt be in game as they are. |
Vengar
Final Dimension
5
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 02:32:00 -
[464] - Quote
Include a POS cargo scanner for mobile labs, Hangars ect..in this expansion please and thanks |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
891
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:51:00 -
[465] - Quote
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. The Tears Must Flow |
Kane Fenris
NWP
74
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 07:52:00 -
[466] - Quote
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 |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 08:52:00 -
[467] - 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. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
155
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 09:49:00 -
[468] - Quote
Is there any chance that the progression from gist large to gist x-large will be investigated? At the moment, the gist c-type X-large is continuing the increase from cap efficiency compared to large, instead of being aligned with the meta level.
so gist large c < b < a < x < XL c < XL b etc.
instead of something more like
large c < XL c < L b < XL b etc.
Right now, the worst XL is just better comared to the best L. (in brackets: death to X-L dominance, needs nerfbat) I only correct my own spelling. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 10:04:00 -
[469] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: 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 ...
This is an interesting problem for CCP. Gallente self rep blaster-fit ships are designed to be up close and personal. i.e. within scram range. For that reason their only way out of an engagement is by winning it. The outcome is digital.
Under those circumstances, if you construct the ship to have a 'fair' (50%) chance of winning a 1:1, it's chances in a 1:2 will rapidly drop to zero.
So in order to be viable in any sort of gang skirmish, it has to be a little more powerful so that it can survive long enough against 2 or 3 opponents for help to arrive.
This must be a very difficult thing to balance as a game designer.
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. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:05:00 -
[470] - 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 |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:14:00 -
[471] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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
Welll... first of all, on a pvp op I always ensure that there are neuts in the fleet.
Secondly, deimos is not *that* op. It will die to a neut-fitted battleship eventually, but it is strong enough to hold on long enough for help to arrive, which I this is it's role. Certainly that's how I've been using it - a hardened point ship.
It will also (eventually) die to a properly flown vagabond. I cannot speak for other ships since I am not an expert in amarr or caldari pvp.
Interestingly no-one has mentioned cruise missiles. I lost one deimos to a pair of ravens fitted with mohlnir cruise missiles and target painters - no neuts involved. Again, with a neut, one of these ravens could have taken it I am sure.
Everything had a counter (except the 100mn tengu..) you just have to think. |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:24:00 -
[472] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:[quote=Veshta Yoshida] 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.
This is not happening at the frigate level. The damage barrage is able to put at scram range is easily denied by the rep power of the incursus, it will be worse after 1.1, while the damage null is putting out is not easily repaired. Also the only T1 frig with a falloff bonus is a galente frig. It would be great if it worked like you wrote, but it doesn't.
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
766
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 12:36:00 -
[473] - 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 |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:08:00 -
[474] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote: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
I think it's reasonable to compare a HAC to a battleship, since they cost a similar amount.
All that tech has to have a purpose.
Nevertheless, a HAC will always be susceptible to a heavy neut, so if I were in a battleship/HAC 1v1 , I think I'd prefer to be in the battleship.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:24:00 -
[475] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
You have logis even in small fleets, all rep boni (bar maybe on frigs) are dumb and shouldnt be in game as they are.
That is strictly a PvP interpretation. The active rep bonuses are quite good on PvE boats. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
130
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:31:00 -
[476] - Quote
Onictus wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
You have logis even in small fleets, all rep boni (bar maybe on frigs) are dumb and shouldnt be in game as they are.
That is strictly a PvP interpretation. The active rep bonuses are quite good on PvE boats.
PVE balance: I used to think in terms of PVE for game balance, but these days I realise that where it really matters in in PVP. Most ship losses occur in PVP and this is where incremental improvements can prove pivotal. PVE for many is "just for the money" and they will just pick the best ship for the job without any emotional attachment. They treat it like a piece of farm machinery, if you will.
PVE players tend to get more emotionally attached to their PVE ships I think, since they see them not as workhorses, but as a mark of their progress in the game. That's certainly where I was a few years ago.
Local tank: I use local tank in PVP small fleets of cruisers and battleships. However in order to do so successfully, you have to be *very* careful about your targets, and you need to take some ECM.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
428
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:36:00 -
[477] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Onictus wrote:W0lf Crendraven wrote:
You have logis even in small fleets, all rep boni (bar maybe on frigs) are dumb and shouldnt be in game as they are.
That is strictly a PvP interpretation. The active rep bonuses are quite good on PvE boats. PVE balance: I used to think in terms of PVE for game balance, but these days I realise that where it really matters in in PVP. Most ship losses occur in PVP and this is where incremental improvements can prove pivotal. PVE for many is "just for the money" and they will just pick the best ship for the job without any emotional attachment. They treat it like a piece of farm machinery, if you will. PVE players tend to get more emotionally attached to their PVE ships I think, since they see them not as workhorses, but as a mark of their progress in the game. That's certainly where I was a few years ago. Local tank: I use local tank in PVP small fleets of cruisers and battleships. However in order to do so successfully, you have to be *very* careful about your targets, and you need to take some ECM.
Well considering that maybe 1/4th of the accounts in the game are PvP characters, much less PvP only you can't ingore that side of the house.
I can say fairly certainly that CCP isn't. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1141
|
Posted - 2013.08.15 13:46:00 -
[478] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Everything has a counter (except the 100mn tengu... sigh)
Web bonus armor Loki with faction point, huge speed strong tank and once it gets on top of it Tengu melts
In groups it's even easier, get a lachesis a pilgrim and fast frig with med asb or aar, point and burn it.
If there are so many legends about 100mn Tengus it's because players want to bring conventional setups to fight unconventional fits. It's like shooting explosive dmg on a shield navy domi: worthless it's like bring a single scram on a fight against missile frigs: worthless you'll never point one if the pilot is not a dumb one
Tengus are not as strong as many claim just because they don't pick the right tools to fight them. As soon as any 100mn pilot gets web by a loki at 40km don't worry, 100mn or not he will run away unless he gets friends on grid (at some point all fights I have lost with my different Tengu set ups were all vs web bonus lokis asbnano fitted, they're close to impossible to kill for a tengu unless bad fits or bad pilot) *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.16 18:40:00 -
[479] - Quote
@ Fozzie
any chance of fixing AAR's anytime soon? I've offered many solutions as has other people Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
101
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 02:59:00 -
[480] - Quote
Last year in the armor tanking 1.5 thread I already said that medium and large armor reps need a reduction in cycle time and a reduction in capacitor use.
The reason why the medium tech2 armor rep + an 800mm plate works well in some cases is that you need the extra armor layer for the rep cycle to hit.
In case of the medium tech2 rep, a lot can happen in 7.7 seconds and 160gj on a 1600gj capacitor is very taxing.
If some people took thier time to read and comprehend, what I was proposing, they would realize that it wasn't unreasonable.
For the lazy one, here are some numbers to stare at:
zee current tech2 medium armor rep haz 15 seconds cycle time needs 160gj capacitorz
wiz ma proposal iz wood be, 10 seconds cycle time needs 80gj capacitorz
or in other wordz -33% cycle time and -50% capacitor usage for zee tech2 medium armor rep.
I waz noze talking about -º$%//%$" deadspace or -º%&$" officer reps. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
|
W0lf Crendraven
The Tuskers
171
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 06:39:00 -
[481] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Is there any chance that the progression from gist large to gist x-large will be investigated? At the moment, the gist c-type X-large is continuing the increase from cap efficiency compared to large, instead of being aligned with the meta level.
so gist large c < b < a < x < XL c < XL b etc.
instead of something more like
large c < XL c < L b < XL b etc.
Right now, the worst XL is just better comared to the best L. (in brackets: death to X-L dominance, needs nerfbat)
No, xlasb are bs modules, l are cruiser sized ones. A medium armor repper should in no way beat a large one (and it doesnt), same with the shield versions.
Btw, @ ccp, please fix deadspace armour repair systems, at least give centus and corpus a diiference, they both have exactly the same stats. And core is unbalanced.
For deadspace shield you imo have a very good balance, gist is way easier on cap and it has way better sustained reps, pith provides more burst tank but is way worse on cap and sustained tank. Both are viable, both have their uses.
For core compared to centus/corpus you have the same sustained reps but without a higher burst rep rate, which imo is bad design (the same problem you also have with faction shield boosters). Give the 3 of them a better balance.
What also is annoying is that some officer boosters have the exact same stats as deadspace ones, this is just plain lazy and shouldnt be happening. Give them some difference.
To the discussion of should pve be relevant in balancing issues.
Imo, no , pve balance doesnt really matter, there is no meta game, the ship wich can it do the fastes/with the least skills/with the least effort will be taken, if a specific frig is 5 times better then another one at lvl1 missions it doesnt do any harm nor does it break a game.
And 90%+ of the ships in game have no relevance in pve, frig/dessie/ t1cruisers pve balance is important for maybe 2 weeks or less of a pve chars playing time, and its a stepping stone, and even if one ship there is 15% better then another one it wont really matter. All the while these ships are of big revelance in pew pew.
So imo, as lomg as every race has access (and i include priate bs in that, training bs IV of another race takes a very short time) to one pve ship that is comptetive, pve balance is fine, pvp balance means that no race is really unable to spent time reaching that one ship and after that its endless grinding anyways (i also think quite a few of the highsec pve chars are alts of some sort, highsec numbers are grossly infalted anways, everyone has at least 1 jita alt on the main ac)
|
The Spod
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.17 12:03:00 -
[482] - Quote
PVE balance is a joke and should be ignored to a high extent. Practically, the ship with best projected dps for the job is the best PVE ship with logistics and webs as the only notable exceptions.
In fact, I think CCP should make a ratting line of ships equivalent to ore mining ships and be done with pve balancing.
|
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 04:43:00 -
[483] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Last year in the armor tanking 1.5 thread I already said that medium and large armor reps need a reduction in cycle time and a reduction in capacitor use.
The reason why the medium tech2 armor rep + an 800mm plate works well in some cases is that you need the extra armor layer for the rep cycle to hit.
In case of the medium tech2 rep, a lot can happen in 7.7 seconds and 160gj on a 1600gj capacitor is very taxing.
If some people took thier time to read and comprehend, what I was proposing, they would realize that it wasn't unreasonable.
For the lazy one, here are some numbers to stare at:
zee current tech2 medium armor rep haz 15 seconds cycle time needs 160gj capacitorz
wiz ma proposal iz wood be, 10 seconds cycle time needs 80gj capacitorz
or in other wordz -33% cycle time and -50% capacitor usage for zee tech2 medium armor rep.
I waz noze talking about -º$%//%$" deadspace or -º%&$" officer reps.
If you want to be taken seriously do not ever post like this. Well formed ideas will be over looked because people will look at the first word "zee" and stop because they think you are dumb. You posted well the first few lines then went to utter gibberish. Please don't bring our forums down with this type of speech anymore. That is reserved for Dust or other FPS games.
Fred
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 10:25:00 -
[484] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:That is reserved for Dust or other FPS games.
almost fell off my chair laughing...
You have to admit though that the fella's maths are right. -50% cap use for an armour repairer is dangerous.
A T2 fitted hyperion with gang links has (when all cap is coverted to repair cycles) about 360,000 ehp.
If you half the cap use, you increase that number to the order of 700,000 - actually a little more because now cap recharge becomes a factor.
I think we'd all have to agree that that's a little overwhelming.
|
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
160
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 11:54:00 -
[485] - Quote
W0lf Crendraven wrote:Lloyd Roses wrote:Is there any chance that the progression from gist large to gist x-large will be investigated? At the moment, the gist c-type X-large is continuing the increase from cap efficiency compared to large, instead of being aligned with the meta level.
so gist large c < b < a < x < XL c < XL b etc.
instead of something more like
large c < XL c < L b < XL b etc.
Right now, the worst XL is just better comared to the best L. (in brackets: death to X-L dominance, needs nerfbat) No, xlasb are bs modules, l are cruiser sized ones. A medium armor repper should in no way beat a large one (and it doesnt), same with the shield versions. Btw, @ ccp, please fix deadspace armour repair systems, at least give centus and corpus a diiference, they both have exactly the same stats. And core is unbalanced. [...]
XL-SBs are quite common for sub-BS hulls (CS, t3s, pimpfit weirdocruisers), and as such I see nothing wrong with the cap efficiency being aligned to the metalevel instead of the size. Against your point: BS can use heavy cap boosters.
'A medium armor repper should in no way beat a large one (and it doesnt), same with the shield versions.' - no one EVER asked fot that, but the cap conversion is twisted. Cap efficiency and NOT boost amount per time was adressed. Pls do not twist my words...
To your armor repairer statement: No. The Core- line is the weak one (budget), which repairs less for the same cap/hp ratio. The sansha/blood raiders got the actual deadspace repairers. I only correct my own spelling. |
Batelle
RisingSuns
159
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 15:10:00 -
[486] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of some subcap shield boosters (T1, Meta, T2, Storyline, Domination, Republic Fleet) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of Caldari Navy and Dread Guristas shield boosters by 5%
just pointing out again that it is stupid to differentiate the CN and DG boosters from other faction boosters when all of them (t2 and all faction) already have the same cap efficiency. All have identical cap efficiency to t2 boosters, all have -20% cycle time compared to t2 versions. This change makes CN and DG boosters worse than t2 for nearly all applications. Fighting is Magic |
elitatwo
Congregatio
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 19:49:00 -
[487] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:That is reserved for Dust or other FPS games.
almost fell off my chair laughing... You have to admit though that the fella's maths are right. -50% cap use for an armour repairer is dangerous. A T2 fitted hyperion with gang links has (when all cap is coverted to repair cycles) about 360,000 ehp. If you half the cap use, you increase that number to the order of 700,000 - actually a little more because now cap recharge becomes a factor. I think we'd all have to agree that that's a little overwhelming.
The idea behind that was that a reduction in cycle time increases your capacitor usage a lot and since some ships benefit from having two reps fitted that reduction in cycle time will be hurting your capacitor, even if you inject cap boosters.
In case of the Hyperion, the reduction of cycle time in addition to the capacitor usage would give your battleship mwd a little more cycles before capping you out.
A beam laser boats might like it even more since those beams tend to highly capaitor dependend, also even when injected.
Assuming I didn't think about what I was doing with these numbers is simply put false.
Imagine a cruiser - and leaving HACs out of this scenario - with a rep that uses less capacitor will help kiting a little longer with its mwd on.
Now about that reduced cycle time, if I am not mistaken a tech2 medium armor rep with one accelerator rig will have a cycle time of 5.5 or 5.4 seconds instead of the 6.5 second it now has - with heat on. Now imagine what will happen to your capacitor with the current 160gj capacitor usage.
I was simply putting numbers to some suitable ideas that were not coming from me alone.
Remember that all guns and missiles got buffed but armor reps cannot keep up with the damage you will find on the field before even one cycle can land.
An assumption about my level of intellingence with only taken one post into account is not viable. You may have noticed that I posted in the forums even before last week.
And posting in a forum, in a language that is not my native language in emphasis to help active armor tanking on none bonussed, low capacitor ships is a courtesy of mine and should be taken as a token that I care.
I could insult you back but I will let it go this time. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Fredric Wolf
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
18
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 21:10:00 -
[488] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Fredric Wolf wrote:That is reserved for Dust or other FPS games.
almost fell off my chair laughing... You have to admit though that the fella's maths are right. -50% cap use for an armour repairer is dangerous. A T2 fitted hyperion with gang links has (when all cap is coverted to repair cycles) about 360,000 ehp. If you half the cap use, you increase that number to the order of 700,000 - actually a little more because now cap recharge becomes a factor. I think we'd all have to agree that that's a little overwhelming. The idea behind that was that a reduction in cycle time increases your capacitor usage a lot and since some ships benefit from having two reps fitted that reduction in cycle time will be hurting your capacitor, even if you inject cap boosters. In case of the Hyperion, the reduction of cycle time in addition to the capacitor usage would give your battleship mwd a little more cycles before capping you out. A beam laser boats might like it even more since those beams tend to highly capaitor dependend, also even when injected. Assuming I didn't think about what I was doing with these numbers is simply put false. Imagine a cruiser - and leaving HACs out of this scenario - with a rep that uses less capacitor will help kiting a little longer with its mwd on. Now about that reduced cycle time, if I am not mistaken a tech2 medium armor rep with one accelerator rig will have a cycle time of 5.5 or 5.4 seconds instead of the 6.5 second it now has - with heat on. Now imagine what will happen to your capacitor with the current 160gj capacitor usage. I was simply putting numbers to some suitable ideas that were not coming from me alone. Remember that all guns and missiles got buffed but armor reps cannot keep up with the damage you will find on the field before even one cycle can land. An assumption about my level of intellingence with only taken one post into account is not viable. You may have noticed that I posted in the forums even before last week. And posting in a forum, in a language that is not my native language in emphasis to help active armor tanking on none bonussed, low capacitor ships is a courtesy of mine and should be taken as a token that I care. I could insult you back but I will let it go this time.
I am sorry I didn't mean to insult you I am just sick of people posting on the forums with purposely misspelled words in the attempt to look cool. I thought you had a very valid point you were making. I also noticed how the first half of your typing was accurate and proper and then you second half was that ****** speech. I also do not buy that posting in a forum, in a language not you own when you have proven at least 2 times that you can speak English properly is a total cop out. Like I said again your points are good but when you type like that people will not look at it or take you seriously. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 22:03:00 -
[489] - Quote
Fredric Wolf wrote:-snip- I am sorry I didn't mean to insult you I am just sick of people posting on the forums with purposely misspelled words in the attempt to look cool. I thought you had a very valid point you were making. I also noticed how the first half of your typing was accurate and proper and then you second half was that ****** speech. I also do not buy that posting in a forum, in a language not you own when you have proven at least 2 times that you can speak English properly is a total cop out. Like I said again your points are good but when you type like that people will not look at it or take you seriously.
Well, that was the point in an extend.
Someone took my idea too far and looked at some tech3 boat he would tank some phantasy amounts of dps and was talking about deadspace reps and stuff that only few people can use, or better loose on a daily basis.
Then I was mad and didn't want to write with caps lock on. So in my Klingon way of exaggeration I took the liberty of misspelling words that most of the readers would know me to be able to pronounce correctly.
But enough of that, I wanted the discussion back to topic and I still think that active medium and large armor reps (tech 1 and 2) could use more help.
Even though I get a headache from thinking about it, I know why EVE is so shield buffer themed on armor tank boats these days. So unless someone will bring an argument that shows that I am completly off by various other things I haven't thought about yet, I still think it would be okay without breaking EVE with op armor reps.
And no, I wouldn't fit a one billion isk module on a 10 million isk hull to prove a point (at being stubborn and have too much isk).
In case of the Incursus, I don't really think that she will be unbreakable with a 15% bonus to small reps.
Let numbers talk for us, for easier comparison let's say an Incursus can repair 100hp armor every 3.8 seconds with a heated tech2 rep. 15% of 100 is 15 and 100 + 15 = 115. That active armor rep Incursus will still explode if an artillery fit Rupture enters the vincinity and presses "fire" on her. Or will cap out rapidly if a well flown kiting Kestrel keeps her range.
So in what phantasy world would that be op?
What we get with CCP Fozzie's boost to armor and shield mods is a free 75% of a standard exile booster or a blue pill without side effects, so I say yeay. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 10:49:00 -
[490] - Quote
you could do with tossing in a cap reduction change aswell especially on normal shield boosters as they use up soo much cap it forces you to use ASB's. And armour reps are so weak you have to use 2 reppers which just burns through cap .. the continuous armour reps vs boosting only makes sense when you sort out the cap issues. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 11:00:00 -
[491] - Quote
elitatwo wrote: That active armor rep Incursus will still explode if an artillery fit Rupture enters the vincinity and presses "fire" on her. Or will cap out rapidly if a well flown kiting Kestrel keeps her range. So in what phantasy world would that be op?
Really? An arty rupture, that's the way you measure it? And a slow ass kessie? It's the combination that is powerfull, Incursus is already a fast ship, with very good damage with blasters or rails, nice projection, and a very good tank. All frigs that armor tank will benefit from this changes, but Incursus thanks to his armor rep bonus will benefit more. Do you really think that incursus, of all frigates, needs this extra buff?
I understand that this is a meta change, but other meta changes always brought minor touches to certain ships, this time there isn't any. What happened since the introduction of AAR? Too much to do? No time to think in possible consequences? Just put it live and will see what happens in a year or two with the excuse that we're waiting for the meta to settle in a game of constant meta changes? If you are tired, just get some vacations and slow down a bit guys.
|
Naomi Anthar
102
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 15:47:00 -
[492] - Quote
Urkhan Law wrote:elitatwo wrote: That active armor rep Incursus will still explode if an artillery fit Rupture enters the vincinity and presses "fire" on her. Or will cap out rapidly if a well flown kiting Kestrel keeps her range. So in what phantasy world would that be op?
Really? An arty rupture, that's the way you measure it? And a slow ass kessie? It's the combination that is powerfull, Incursus is already a fast ship, with very good damage with blasters or rails, nice projection, and a very good tank. All frigs that armor tank will benefit from this changes, but Incursus thanks to his armor rep bonus will benefit more. Do you really think that incursus, of all frigates, needs this extra buff? I understand that this is a meta change, but other meta changes always brought minor touches to certain ships, this time there isn't any. What happened since the introduction of AAR? Too much to do? No time to think in possible consequences? Just put it live and will see what happens in a year or two with the excuse that we're waiting for the meta to settle in a game of constant meta changes? If you are tired, just get some vacations and slow down a bit guys.
Man incursus is my favourite prey. You may think it's fast - but is not.
Let's consider 2 options :
1. Incursus with cap booster = dead incursus , sure it reps but you can kite it at scram range and it will die eventually. Not like you could kill it before cap charges died pre 1.1. Probably worst fit i ever seen ;). Not so fast when webed and cannot counterweb + it usually uses explo rig - you may think it's not much but it slows him down. Don't engage it with atron , merlin etc that relies on blaster damage lol.
2. Incursus with web (without cap booster, single rep) - ok this one is more dangerous. And i would not suggest flying at 0 in FW plex. But in the end again it's bound to use explo rig that slow it down. It's not THAT fast really. Most of the time people take 200mm plate too - which is great mistake in this case. With plate and explo rig - i could easily make distance with not so fast ships like tormentor.
So everything that is faster (MANY ships) counters it somehow. Everything that brawls at very close range ... will have extremly hard time vs incursus (merlin ? atron ? etc).
Here is list of ships i use to screw over any kind of incursus:
1. Tormentor - SUPER HARD COUNTER ... if you go with active tank and don't plate it - very important. You need to be faster even a bit.
2. Tristan - yes ladies tristan after buffs to mass and speed can keep distance when properly fit.(not talking about mwd kiter lol)
3. Executioner - faster and with aar will either chew through single rep incu or at least will be able to disengage dual rep one.(out of boredom)
4. Crucifier - much praised blaster tracking can be screwed over hard by this bugger.(~~ - 63% ).
5 Breacher - should be faster and with more mids can easily dictate range of engagement ?
6. Slow ass kestrel ? with 2 webs + scram can keep incursus at distance where it deals close to no damage.
I could go on but ... i honestly think incursus is not that good ship.
I will go even further - i think other ships may benefit from this change even more.
Story is simple - if you wasn't able to outbrawl incu before - you won't be able after this change. And if you was able to kite him to death before at scram range - you will still be doing this bro ;). |
Urkhan Law
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
10
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 17:45:00 -
[493] - Quote
Naomi Anthar wrote: I will go even further - i think other ships may benefit from this change even more. Story is simple - if you wasn't able to outbrawl incu before - you won't be able after this change. And if you was able to kite him to death before at scram range - you will still be doing this bro
Some ships will have to use a neut/or drop a plate/or use 2 webs to kill a standart incursus, while incursus will not have to do nothing to kill most standart fitted ships. Let's not even talk about rails who do not fit a plate.
I'm very rifter biased as you know :-P Let's see how it goes after the update, really hope you're right.
OBS: Not plated, only 2 Combat frigates are faster than incursus, rifter and breacher. Attack frigates are all faster than the Incursus of course. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
107
|
Posted - 2013.08.21 18:19:00 -
[494] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:you could do with tossing in a cap reduction change aswell especially on normal shield boosters as they use up soo much cap it forces you to use ASB's. And armour reps are so weak you have to use 2 reppers which just burns through cap .. the continuous armour reps vs boosting only makes sense when you sort out the cap issues.
I would be careful on reducing capacitor use on shield boosters because you can have a ton of booster cycles than armor rep cycles with one cap booster.
But if we were to pursue this maybe we could talk about changing some values on the core defense operational soldifier to a small extend.
You should view asbs as a buffer and not as an active tank.
A little sidenote here since we are talking offtopic anyway, I am flying active tanked Caldari ships for almost seven years now, added Gallente ships last year and Amarr ships a few months ago. Yet I have a strong passion for active armor tanking and the lore behind them. FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 18:33:00 -
[495] - Quote
No form of active tank can be viewed correctly as "tank" in pvp, save for a few cap-stable Gist-based shield fits (these need to be gimped).
In PVE, where there is enough cap, yes.
In PVP an active tank is a means for converting cap boosters into EHP. The important metrics are rate (in order to keep up with incoming DPS and neuts) and efficiency.
The efficiency is important in order to prevent cap booster depletion prior to destroying your enemy.
Even an ASB (which is simply a derivative of shield boosting that it immune to cap warfare) is such a converter.
The moment you reduce cap requirements for tanking to the point where they can be permanently run on cap recharge alone on a PVP-fitted ship, you will break eve.
An example of broken eve is the gist x-type perma-repping tengu with crystal impants that will permanently tank 2500dps.
The game of Eve will be improved, in my view, by re-addressing modules that can achieve this game-breaking feat.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
78
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 22:13:00 -
[496] - Quote
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.
Just as the Deimos destroyed HAC balance... |
elitatwo
Congregatio
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 23:37:00 -
[497] - Quote
Phaade 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. Just as the Deimos destroyed HAC balance...
You are right!
On TQ we never run into gangs that have more than one ship or gatecamps, never happened and never will.
Everybody will just dock up and run if they ever see an Incursus or a Deimos on d-scan. I know I will
FB_Addon_TelNo{height:15px !important;white-space: nowrap !important;background-color: #0ff0ff;} |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
204
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 23:43:00 -
[498] - Quote
There never was a HAC balance. It was vagabonds, zealots, ishtars and nothing else.
Now the choice is wider, depending on the role.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Archa4 Badasaz
Viziam Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 01:08:00 -
[499] - Quote
I started exploring when Pithum C-Type Boosters were at 300m a piece. Then prices for them rose to 500m. After Odissey came, they started a steep drop, and now are at ~ 170m. Guess what will happen to those prices after 1.1? Why are you nerfing the income of explorers? |
Lady Manus
Lumen et Umbra
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 21:41:00 -
[500] - Quote
The proposed changes for Shield boosters are overall bad imho,
While the gist boosters are already good, pith boosters are getting a major nerf, prices already dropped to almost nothing and no one will ever use those after 1.1.
Please reconsider: remove all shiedl boosters bonus or give pith boosters at least 15% or, better, 20-25% bonus to large and x-large ones.
LM |
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
237
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 23:51:00 -
[501] - Quote
Lady Manus wrote:The proposed changes for Shield boosters are overall bad imho,
While the gist boosters are already good, pith boosters are getting a major nerf, prices already dropped to almost nothing and no one will ever use those after 1.1.
Please reconsider: remove all shiedl boosters bonus or give pith boosters at least 15% or, better, 20-25% bonus to large and x-large ones.
LM
Ridiculous. Gist shield boosters are already 4x the capacitor efficiency of all other local repair modules. They are very overpowered and need to be nerfed.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:07:00 -
[502] - Quote
Here is a question I'd like to have answered by Fozzie or Rise, ect. Why do the corpum/centum armor reppers have the same cap efficiency as the corelums but rep around 12-13% more?
Corpum A-type Medium Armor rep: 538 hp for 180 cap, or 2.99 hp per cap
Corelum A-Type Medium Armor rep: 478 hp for 160 cap, or 2.99 hp per cap
I think now would be the perfect time to mix up the different types of dead space reppers to each be a bit different but not simply better.
As an example, Corpum could be higher hp/s with lower hp per cap, Centum could be a middle ground lineup, offering average cap/s as well as average hp per cap, and Corelum could be a high efficiency module similar (but not as overpowered) to Gist shield boosters. |
Witchking Angmar
Perkele.
43
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 19:09:00 -
[503] - Quote
Why do you buff Minmatar type faction boosters more than you do Caldari type, in comparison to the respective meta11 and higher? That is, you lessen the gap between Minmatar type faction and meta11+ while widening the gap for Caldari. This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. To further illustrate:
Caldari faction: 600HP GåÆ 630HP Caldari meta11: 660HP GåÆ 726HP Difference: 10% GåÆ 15.238%
Minmatar faction: 480HP GåÆ 552HP Minmatar meta11: 525HP GåÆ 577.5HP Difference: 9.375% GåÆ 4.620%
In essence you make the Caldari meta11+ better in comparison to the Caldari faction while making Minmatar meta11+ worse in comparison to Minmatar faction. Now i don't mind changing the differences between Minmatar and Caldari, but why change each group internally? It feels to me like all this was previously calculated using a constant function of the meta level, whereas what you are doing here mostly seems like arbitrarily throwing multipliers on arbitrarily chosen categories. |
Jade ID-900
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 05:05:00 -
[504] - Quote
Wait, wouldn't that change pretty significantly shift the balance between armor rep/shield boosting ships and armor plated/ shield extended ships?
Does a plated FW Tristan have to fight Incursus'es with 350EHP active tank per sec, rather than the 300EHP from now on?
If so, that seems a pretty weird and unbalanced change to me. What am I missing? I thought the reason was to make armor and shield reps more balanced, but not affect active and passive tank by doing so. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
247
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:26:00 -
[505] - Quote
As I see it, there are two underlying drivers for this change:
1. over time, ship dps output has risen whereas local tank has not 2. ASBs are highly overpowered, overshadowing all other forms lof local tank
This has left ASB as the only (except in rare cases) viable local tank solution.
There are 2 ways to resolve this:
1. scale back ship output dps to original levels, and reduce the effectiveness of ASBs, or 2. raise other forms of local tank to bring them into line
Getting local tanks right is very difficult. There is a very fine line between a tank being not enough to survive a sensible amount of time in an uneven contest, and being unbreakable in a 1v1.
Fortunately, local tanks require more cap than a pvp ship can generate, forcing the ship to burn cap boosters. Thus an upper limit on effective EHP is established through the product of the ship's resistances, the size of booster it burns and the size of the cargo hold.
If you want to reduce it's eEHP, energy neutralisers are the answer.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
71
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:40:00 -
[506] - Quote
^This
As long there is no Kind of Ewar like Neuts to Local repairer, the Buffer Tank is always in a advantage because Most fights without Logi Support will end so quickly that the Cycle wont Run through until you pop.
Remember you can outdamage the local repairer with dps, neut their cap or simply Alpha them out their ship. Which can a Puffer Tank nearly ignore...
|
Rekon X
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 22:52:00 -
[507] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Judas II wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: Increase the rep amount for all armor repairers (including AARs) by 15% Increase the shield bonus of all shield boosters (except for deadspace/officer reps and ASBs) by 15%
Daft question, are faction Shield boosters buffed or not? (Dread Guristas, Pith A/B/C/X-type etc etc) Faction boosters like Dread Guristas are buffed, Deadspace boosters like Pith are not.
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Let us know what you think!
So I take it Pith "are" included in this now? They are listed as deadspace ingame under metagroup.
Do we have any updates on this? Changes going into effect in 4 days and no updates since Aug 7?
Large Shield Booster II 240hp for 160gj = 1.5 hp / gj Pith A-Type Large Shield Booster 312hp for 160gj = 1.95 hp / gj
After change @ 15%
Large Shield Booster II 276hp for 160gj = 1.725 hp / gj
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 22:59:00 -
[508] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Let us know what you think! So I take it Pith "are" included in this now? They are listed as deadspace ingame under metagroup. Do we have any updates on this? Changes going into effect in 4 days and no updates since Aug 7?
When he said, "let us know what you think", you will notice that he did not make a specific promise to act upon or respond to what you think.
It's like a manager saying, "my door is always open". It is open, but waste his f*cking time by going in there and giving him your worthless opinion on anything other than the awesomeness of his five point plan will just have him reaching for the HR guide to firing troublesome little sh*ts faster than you can blink.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Rekon X
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:15:00 -
[509] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Rekon X wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Increase the shield bonus of Large Deadspace/Officer, X-Large Deadspace/Officer shield boosters by 10% Let us know what you think! So I take it Pith "are" included in this now? They are listed as deadspace ingame under metagroup. Do we have any updates on this? Changes going into effect in 4 days and no updates since Aug 7? When he said, "let us know what you think", you will notice that he did not make a specific promise to act upon or respond to what you think. It's like a manager saying, "my door is always open". It is open, but waste his f*cking time by going in there and giving him your worthless opinion on anything other than the awesomeness of his five point plan will just have him reaching for the HR guide to firing troublesome little sh*ts faster than you can blink.
But when he said Pith was not included was Aug 1, and changed the main thread Aug 7.
By the post Deadspace Large and X-Large (which includes Pith, Gist) will be buffed 10%.
No buff would make deadspace mods of little value. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
270
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:24:00 -
[510] - Quote
Rekon X wrote: But when he said Pith was not included was Aug 1, and changed the main thread Aug 7.
By the post Deadspace Large and X-Large (which includes Pith, Gist) will be buffed 10%.
No buff would make deadspace mods of little value.
None of that matters. While Gist shield boosters retain their OP ability to convert cap to shields at twice the efficiency of any other type, all other shield boosters are obsolete - as is armour tanking, even with a bonused ship.
Even that does not matter. While the ASB remains the most cap-efficient, fastest boosting module in the entire game, even after this little change, all other tanks are obsolete.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Scope Gallente Federation
553
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 23:48:00 -
[511] - Quote
Rekon X wrote:
But when he said Pith was not included was Aug 1, and changed the main thread Aug 7.
By the post Deadspace Large and X-Large (which includes Pith, Gist) will be buffed 10%.
No buff would make deadspace mods of little value.
Pith Yes, Gist no
Gist are already super OP in terms of hp/cap...
X-Large Shield Booster t2: 600/400 1.5 hp/cap 150hp/sec Gist A-Type X-Large Shield Booster: 620/196 3.06 hp/cap 155hp/sec Pith A-Type X-Large Shield Booster: 780/400 1.95 hp/cap 195hp/sec
Omitting the Gist line of Dead Space Shield boosters from the +10% would go a long ways in bringing these modules inline with the rest.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
335
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 20:32:00 -
[512] - Quote
Does this mean we get our resists pushed back up to 5% per level? The whole reason why they were nerfed was because local rep bonuses somehow performed badly in comparison. Local reps are having a massive buff and by the same circular logic identified in this thread
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224880
If you reverse the math it can now be seen that Local Rep bonuses are more powerful than resist bonuses. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1487
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 21:39:00 -
[513] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Does this mean we get our resists pushed back up to 5% per level? The whole reason why they were nerfed was because local rep bonuses somehow performed badly in comparison. Local reps are having a massive buff and by the same circular logic identified in this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224880If you reverse the math it can now be seen that Local Rep bonuses are more powerful than resist bonuses. This change was in response to booster resists getting nerfed by 10% and was done to compensate local reps for the lost resist. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction
489
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 11:45:00 -
[514] - Quote
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Does this mean we get our resists pushed back up to 5% per level? The whole reason why they were nerfed was because local rep bonuses somehow performed badly in comparison. Local reps are having a massive buff and by the same circular logic identified in this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224880If you reverse the math it can now be seen that Local Rep bonuses are more powerful than resist bonuses.
THe ammount of bonus in the local repairer is IRRELEVANT in the dispute between Local repair bonus and resit bonus, sicen the resist bonus Also applies over the same values.
THE fact remaisn that Local repair bonus MUST be stronger, because they are more focused and less versatile than resist ones! |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
330
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 12:16:00 -
[515] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Does this mean we get our resists pushed back up to 5% per level? The whole reason why they were nerfed was because local rep bonuses somehow performed badly in comparison. Local reps are having a massive buff and by the same circular logic identified in this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224880If you reverse the math it can now be seen that Local Rep bonuses are more powerful than resist bonuses. THe ammount of bonus in the local repairer is IRRELEVANT in the dispute between Local repair bonus and resit bonus, sicen the resist bonus Also applies over the same values. THE fact remaisn that Local repair bonus MUST be stronger, because they are more focused and less versatile than resist ones!
^^^ this.
To reiterate:
for local tank, resist bonus helps and local repair bonus helps for logi tank, resist bonus helps, local repair bonus does not help for buffer tank and alpha resistance, resist bonus helps, local repair bonus does not help.
Local repair bonus is a niche bonus that pigeonholes the ship into the role of small gang brawler. The resist bonus is an all-round bonus to effectiveness under all circumstances - even when the ship is out of cap.
Therefore it makes sense that local rep bonuses are more powerful - they are a specialisation.
Winter marauders - more replies than any other thread, for a ship that no-one flies :-)
|
Nocturnal Phantom
TunDraGon
25
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 16:00:00 -
[516] - Quote
Yay... Local reps are getting a buff; and if only the T3 Legion's would get a DPS buff... I would only be on cloud-9 drinking genatonics' then... A man can dream... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
394
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 20:41:00 -
[517] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Does this mean we get our resists pushed back up to 5% per level? The whole reason why they were nerfed was because local rep bonuses somehow performed badly in comparison. Local reps are having a massive buff and by the same circular logic identified in this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=224880If you reverse the math it can now be seen that Local Rep bonuses are more powerful than resist bonuses. THe ammount of bonus in the local repairer is IRRELEVANT in the dispute between Local repair bonus and resit bonus, sicen the resist bonus Also applies over the same values. THE fact remaisn that Local repair bonus MUST be stronger, because they are more focused and less versatile than resist ones! ^^^ this. To reiterate: for local tank, resist bonus helps and local repair bonus helps for logi tank, resist bonus helps, local repair bonus does not help for buffer tank and alpha resistance, resist bonus helps, local repair bonus does not help. Local repair bonus is a niche bonus that pigeonholes the ship into the role of small gang brawler. The resist bonus is an all-round bonus to effectiveness under all circumstances - even when the ship is out of cap. Therefore it makes sense that local rep bonuses are more powerful - they are a specialisation.
I agree with all of that, but would still like my resists returned to 5% per level, even if local reps are made even stronger to compensate. Also reverse the stealth nerf to active resist modules that no longer have skill bonuses applied. Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction... |
Shade Alidiana
Militant Mermen LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
55
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 10:17:00 -
[518] - Quote
If someone is still reading this... What about reducing cap/s on some modules like CN/DG boosters to bring them in line with t2 (as they were used to be equal in terms of hp/gj). This looks terribly unfair to me that CN/DG boosters are the least effective boosters possible now. |
Nova Satar
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
173
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 12:25:00 -
[519] - Quote
cannot commend these changes enough! much needed and much loved |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page] |