EVE Search - Discuss shield rig vs. armor rig balance?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Discuss shield rig vs. armor rig balance?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.08 16:48:00 - [1] Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 08/01/2007 16:46:13 Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 08/01/2007 16:46:05 Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 08/01/2007 16:45:22 Everyone knew that this would come up eventually. It needs to be discussed maturely. No flaming is needed. Discuss the issue calmly and objectively. I provide a possible solution at the end. Please suggest your own ideas for fixing the issue. Or, discuss why you think it is balanced. Description of issue Shield rig drawback: sig radius penalty Armor rig drawback: speed penalty The penalties for these rigs seem skewed when considering balance. Sig radius isn't much of a penalty. Explaination: - A battleship fitting a shield rig isn't going to suffer. A shield tanking battleship is taking full damage from any missiles except citadel torps anyway. There is no drawback vs guns in practice. - A battlecruiser/CS fitting the shield rigs receives very little drawback from being hit by a Battleship using torps; and as far as I can tell, no drawback from being hit by a Battleship using cruise. There is no drawback vs guns in practice. - Rigs seem to be designed so that they are far too expensive to be used on most smaller ships, thus this is not worth discussing. Perhaps shield tanking HACs would be hurt from this while taking on Battleships? Now what about armor? - A battleship using armor rigs recieves between a 27% and a 15% penalty to speed. Speed is absolutely vital to armor tanked ships such as the Tempest, Typhoon, Armageddon, and Megathron/Hyperion. These ships are over penalized. They could use a speed rig to help compensate, but shield tanked battleships don't need to use any "supporting" rigs that limit their tanking abilities. - A battle cruiser/CS also recieves the above mentioned speed penalty. The Harbringer, Brutix, Hurricane armor tank and need speed to get close (OR KITE!) the enemy. - Cruisers like the rupture, muninn, thorax, deimos, maller, and zealot all need their speed to survive. Not much more to say, here... Any of those ships minus 27%-15% of its speed is pretty much screwed. Recap: - Speed is a very severe penalty on armored ships which also tend to be gun ships when you consider the penalty on a ship by ship basis). These ships must either not use tank rigs, or they must use a speed rig to help compensate. - When you consider the main large shield tanked ships (Maelstrom, Raven, Scorpion, Drake, Caldari CCs, Sleipnir) , these ships do not incur a significant disadvantage for fitting an uber tank. Their rig fitting is not limited by requiring a rig to make up for the drawback of another rig. How to fix it! Suggestion 1: Rig drawbacks seem VERY poorly designed! They have a flat 10% drawback amount on their selected drawback attribute. My suggestion is to rethink the drawback amount. If CCP were to reduce armor drawback amount, this would balance things up a bit. Suggestion 2: One might notice that the shield drawback issue makes a certain kind of sense. You can tank better, but you're taking more damage from larger ships. Perhaps armor rigs need a similar consideration. Perhaps a drawback similar to shields (large sig radius), or a drawback to structure HP. Allow me to state that I fly all Caldari ships. I enjoy my Drake a great deal. I can't wait to have my Raven!! I certainly do not want shield rigs nerfed. This is NOT NECESSARY. However, it is simple to see that armor rigs need some "love". We know Tuxford "pre-nerfed" rigs. It would appear that some rigs got "pre-nerfed" more than others. Perhaps we should urge Tuxford to look at this issue more closely! How about it?
velocoraptor Art of War Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.08 16:53:00 - [2] Got 2 chars. One fly Gallente, other Caldari. I think you're right, so: /signed. Kali IS the goddess of destruction after all
Diana Merris Minmatar	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:00:00 - [3] As currently implemented Shield rigs work exactly the same as shield extenders, +HP +sig. Armor plates and rigs both increase HP but plates increase mass while rigs decrease speed. Would it be better if the rigs increased ship mass by a percentage and thus only penelized you when using an AB or MWD ?
Jovialmadness	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:02:00 - [4] yet another reason to join Caldari online Quote: As a side note, i liken capacitor to blood. Without blood, nothing can function in the body. I do NOT like being a race that bleeds quicker than anyone else. yes, i am an alt..Jovial Quote:
Blue Rider Coonass Cajun an dem Crawdad Capsewl Combatuns Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:19:00 - [5] Edited by: Blue Rider on 08/01/2007 17:17:09 May or may not be the best solutions but, one thing seems pretty clear... the armor rigs are meant for distance fighters not for close-up ships. Or, at least distance fighters could potentially take the most advantage from the armor rigs. How about: The HP bonues armor rigs lower the agility of the fitting ship by a %, meaning you'll have more armor but you better be more adept at steering your ship properly. The repair bonus armor rigs can lower the the overall capacitor size (since using the repair duration rig already causes you to use more cap sooner, there's no sense in having it have a cap recharge penalty). This would complement, what I see as a shorter fight module, in that you will be able to tank more in a short time and less in the long run as the more you repair more often drains the cap. (sorry for stating the obvious, just trying to make the point clear) edit:sp?
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:19:00 - [6] One thing to add here that the shield rig drawback is stacking penalized. So with shield rigging 1 you get a 9% increase with the first, a 7.8% increase with the 2nd and a 5.1% increase with the 3rd shield rig.
fawfawf	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:20:00 - [7] well, while i do see that armor rigs are penalised more than shield rigs one must admit that armor rigs kinda have a rig to equalise that... namely the 15% (20%)armor boost rig. this might be the single best rig out there, so yeah while penalties are higher to the shield ones this rig so makes it worth it. 15% armor rep. boost > -10% cap need for shield boosters
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:29:00 - [8] Originally by: fawfawf well, while i do see that armor rigs are penalised more than shield rigs one must admit that armor rigs kinda have a rig to equalise that... namely the 15% (20%)armor boost rig. this might be the single best rig out there, so yeah while penalties are higher to the shield ones this rig so makes it worth it. 15% armor rep. boost > -10% cap need for shield boosters Don't forget shield rigs that make passive regen better. Shield passive regen is really getting powerful! Even if that WASN'T in, the armor rig drawback is just a bit too much. An agility penalty might be better - however, perhaps not 10%. That's a bit too high no matter how you slice it.
Firecrak	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:35:00 - [9] I like Kinsei's ideas/discussion, it does seem a bit unfair to have such an integral part of an armor tankers fare (tackling, manuevering etc) be usurped by a rather insignificant (in this case) penalty.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:38:00 - [10] Strage people keep saying rigs are too expensive to use in smaller ships. My previous corps had quite afew rigs in cruisers an i have 5 rigs in BCs. People should start trying to make them to see its not that hard. If brute force doesn't solve your problem.. then you are not using enough!!
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:42:00 - [11] Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 08/01/2007 17:39:31 Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 08/01/2007 17:39:08 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Strage people keep saying rigs are too expensive to use in smaller ships. My previous corps had quite afew rigs in cruisers an i have 5 rigs in BCs. People should start trying to make them to see its not that hard. If we take the assumption that people will put rigs in their smaller ships - then the speed issue becomes an even bigger problem. - Shield tanked small ships will only be significantly hurt when they get attacked by a larger missile ship (so, a cruiser hit by a raven's torp, for instance) - Armor tanked small ships will lose the speed that they absolutely depend on in order to survive! Once again: I don't want shield rigs nerfed. This is not the intention here. I think that the armor drawback needs to be rethought. It just needs to be: - a smaller drawback amount, OR - agility (not 10%, certainly), OR - hull reduction (again, probably not 10%), OR - MASSIVE shield reduction (perhaps on the order of 50% less shield HP per rig - so that armor tankers COMPLETELY LOSE their shield buffer zone), OR - sig radius penalty like with shields
Twin blade Minmatar The Caldari Confederation	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:47:00 - [12] Maybe armor rig's could lower Max shield HP by like 30% a rig i mean replace the shield gen's with more armor plate's as well as add a bit more mass. !
Fon Revedhort Aeria Gloris Inc United Legion	Posted - 2007.01.08 17:53:00 - [13] Are you saying tanking rigs are broken? They all are messed up. Just have a look at turret ones: they either give a sucky dps bonus(stacking penalized with dmg mods anyway) or a miserable boost in tracking or whatever you can choose there, and that's for additional 6-10% (well, 5 if you really want) cost in powergrid.
Mordaunt Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:37:00 - [14] Bear in mind though that for most shield tankers (which are active) they'd probably be using cap recharge rigs anyway which would give a better all round effect. And their penalty is, err, umm, nothing. Oh
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:44:00 - [15] Originally by: Fon Revedhort Are you saying tanking rigs are broken? They all are messed up. Just have a look at turret ones: they either give a sucky dps bonus(stacking penalized with dmg mods anyway) or a miserable boost in tracking or whatever you can choose there, and that's for additional 6-10% (well, 5 if you really want) cost in powergrid. The devs stated multiple times that rigs were supposed to be more of a defensive nature, so it's not exactly surprising that the weapon rigs suck compared to the other rigs.
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.08 18:50:00 - [16] Originally by: Mordaunt Bear in mind though that for most shield tankers (which are active) they'd probably be using cap recharge rigs anyway which would give a better all round effect. And their penalty is, err, umm, nothing. Oh For MISSIONS they might be using cap recharge, yeah... that would be a waste in PVP... probably. Looking around at various setups, it looks like if people aren't passive tanking in PVP, they're fitting extra resists on their shield tanks.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.08 19:20:00 - [17] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 08/01/2007 19:21:39 Originally by: Blue Rider Edited by: Blue Rider on 08/01/2007 17:17:09 May or may not be the best solutions but, one thing seems pretty clear... the armor rigs are meant for distance fighters not for close-up ships. Or, at least distance fighters could potentially take the most advantage from the armor rigs. How about: The HP bonues armor rigs lower the agility of the fitting ship by a %, meaning you'll have more armor but you better be more adept at steering your ship properly. The repair bonus armor rigs can lower the the overall capacitor size (since using the repair duration rig already causes you to use more cap sooner, there's no sense in having it have a cap recharge penalty). This would complement, what I see as a shorter fight module, in that you will be able to tank more in a short time and less in the long run as the more you repair more often drains the cap. (sorry for stating the obvious, just trying to make the point clear) edit:sp? Armor rigs are for distance fighters? LoL. Long range is either in fleet battles where that armor rig is gonna do you as good as a paper helmet if you get called primary, or your sniping at gates where you wont get hit anyway. No sir, armor rigs are for close combat. What I on the other hand find a shame is that smaller ships cant use armor or shield rigs. Speed and Sig radius is all these ships have. So whats left for small ships? The sucky weapon upgrades?
Magnus Card Caldari	Posted - 2007.01.08 19:27:00 - [18] Originally by: Mordaunt Bear in mind though that for most shield tankers (which are active) they'd probably be using cap recharge rigs anyway which would give a better all round effect. And their penalty is, err, umm, nothing. Oh Armor tankers can benefit just as much from cap recharge rigs if not more so since they tend to be heavy cap using ships anyway. Still rockin as a !
schurem Silver Snake Enterprise Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.08 20:10:00 - [19] not all weapon upgrades suck. I have on my mael a falloff enhancer, and that frackin PWNS. And it doesnt stack with anything :D However, I still think EvE needs more and better tactical warning sounds. <<<< No Boundaries, No Fences, Fly Free* Or Die Trying* >>>>
Alassra Eventide Veldspar Industries	Posted - 2007.01.08 21:43:00 - [20] Keep in mind that the rigs for shields give a % boost, not a flat number. Throw a couple shield rigs on a BC, and an extender or two, and you've got a sig radius bigger than any BS out there.
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.08 21:59:00 - [21] Originally by: Alassra Eventide Keep in mind that the rigs for shields give a % boost, not a flat number. Throw a couple shield rigs on a BC, and an extender or two, and you've got a sig radius bigger than any BS out there. And it doesn't matter a damn... unless you're being shot with citadel torps and you aren't already target painted.
WildAmishRose Caldari Vale Heavy Industries	Posted - 2007.01.09 00:52:00 - [22] Originally by: Kinsei Isamu Originally by: Alassra Eventide Keep in mind that the rigs for shields give a % boost, not a flat number. Throw a couple shield rigs on a BC, and an extender or two, and you've got a sig radius bigger than any BS out there. And it doesn't matter a damn... unless you're being shot with citadel torps and you aren't already target painted. You say that, until your stupid little battlecruiser gets instapwned by some torpspam. Sig radius matters. Ships with a bigger sig radius are going to be tracked better, hit more often, etc. Do yourself a favor directly: This is a ferox, look at it's sig, 285m http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/ships/battlecruisers/caldari/16227.asp This is a bane torpedo. http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/shipequipment/ammunitioncharges/missiles/torpedoes/standardtorpedoes/2508.asp Everyone loves bane torpedos, and you'll notice an 'explosion radius' of 400m, this means, that with no extender, you take less damage, but, when you pop on some rigs, you take 450 damage a hit. Sounds like a pretty big penalty to me.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.01.09 01:54:00 - [23] Also increases in sig radius are equivalent to increases in your opponents' tracking. So in cases where you actually have some transversal, the penalty does have some meaning against turrets. Whether its balanced correctly against the armor rig penalty or not, I couldn't say. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.09 02:30:00 - [24] Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:44:04 Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:30:34 Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Also increases in sig radius are equivalent to increases in your opponents' tracking. So in cases where you actually have some transversal, the penalty does have some meaning against turrets. At proper ranges and at proper transversals, guns aren't going to have a hard time tracking a BC/BS to a point where the penalty would INCREASE their tracking by any significant margin. Originally by: WildAmishRose this means, that with no extender, you take less damage Mmmhmmm! Once again, however, sig radius penalty IS NO PENALTY AT ALL for large ships. Raven, Maelstrom, Rokh, Scorpion. No penalty. Conversely, the speed penalty is a VERY SEVERE penalty to ALL ships that use those rigs. See where the power curve gets thrown off? Simply because a BC that uses a shield rig might take a BIT more damage depending on its setup (ie. whether it uses extenders or not) - does NOT mean that these penalties are balanced. They are NOT balanced for large ships: - The armor rigs COMPLETELY screw small ships (wheras if a small ship with the sigradius of a small moon goes FAST enough it can still avoid missile fire - this is how a well geared nanophoon works - but things have to be moving *VERY* fast - a big part of why inties get hit for such low damage against missiles - it ISN'T JUST THEIR SIG RADIUS! It is their SPEED!). - Large armored ships become pitiful with 27%-15% reduced speed.
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.09 02:34:00 - [25] Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:30:21 double post
Kldraina	Posted - 2007.01.09 02:47:00 - [26] I like the idea of having the armor rigs increase mass rather than reduce speed as it fits the current penalties for fitting armor plates. I believe that shield rigs are more powerful overall than armor rigs, and that it is probably a good thing. Why? Because not enough people shield tank.
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.09 02:50:00 - [27] Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:52:04 Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:47:39 Originally by: Kldraina I believe that shield rigs are more powerful overall than armor rigs, and that it is probably a good thing. Why? Because not enough people shield tank. So... CREATING an imbalance is the solution to this? As opposed to... say... adding more ships to other races that shield tank? Anyway, while Tux certainly wants more shield tanks in PVP, I highly doubt he CREATED this imbalance intentionally. It is likely an oversight, CCP was in a hurry, so all drawbacks got a blanket 10% drawback penalty. Tux also admitted to pre-nerfing rigs in general. Most likely, armor rigs just got a bit more "pre-nerfed". This isn't supposed to cause a flame war or something stupid - just to point out that this is something that should be looked at as soon as possible. I've listed several suggestions of "fixes" to the imbalance: considering new drawback amounts on a case-by-case basis is one of them.
Audri Fisher Caldari The Keep THE R0CK	Posted - 2007.01.09 03:06:00 - [28] Originally by: Kinsei Isamu Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:44:04 Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 02:30:34 Originally by: Tsanse Kinske Also increases in sig radius are equivalent to increases in your opponents' tracking. So in cases where you actually have some transversal, the penalty does have some meaning against turrets. At proper ranges and at proper transversals, guns aren't going to have a hard time tracking a BC/BS to a point where the penalty would INCREASE their tracking by any significant margin. Originally by: WildAmishRose this means, that with no extender, you take less damage Mmmhmmm! Once again, however, sig radius penalty IS NO PENALTY AT ALL for large ships. Raven, Maelstrom, Rokh, Scorpion. No penalty. Conversely, the speed penalty is a VERY SEVERE penalty to ALL ships that use those rigs. See where the power curve gets thrown off? Simply because a BC that uses a shield rig might take a BIT more damage depending on its setup (ie. whether it uses extenders or not) - does NOT mean that these penalties are balanced. They are NOT balanced for large ships: - The armor rigs COMPLETELY screw small ships (wheras if a small ship with the sigradius of a small moon goes FAST enough it can still avoid missile fire - this is how a well geared nanophoon works - but things have to be moving *VERY* fast - a big part of why inties get hit for such low damage against missiles - it ISN'T JUST THEIR SIG RADIUS! It is their SPEED!). - Large armored ships become pitiful with 27%-15% reduced speed. so, at proper ranges and transversal sig radious isn't a concerne for turret users. That's great if everything goes perfectly. It makes a big difference when things are not going all your way.
Jet Collins Dynamic Endeavors	Posted - 2007.01.09 03:39:00 - [29] Edited by: Jet Collins on 09/01/2007 03:36:24 Persoanlly I think both shield and armor rigs suck for Minmatar ships. Our streghts are Speed and our small sigs. But wait Minmatar arn't tankers... well ok than never mind. Post locked.(well that was before the cyclone and new BS, even though still not good tankers just better) Cal= shield tankers some of the largest sigs. Amarr= armor tankers. They have some very fast ships, and are perty versital in there ranges since they can cahnge crystls in a second. Persoanly I think Armor rigs penalty could go with out the speed nerf and do some thing else maybe Cap nerf or a PG nerf. Agility as some have said could really screw you over I really don't think you want that I think the speed nerf is better than an agility nerf. But this is comeing from a minmatar. As I see it there Rigs are not ment for us. Shield rigs are ment for Cal who already have large sig and armor rigs for Amarr which don;t really need speed because they can change crystals quickly to get the range need and not speed to get the range needed. Armor rigs would be benifical for Gal as well however they need speed to get in range. So you are better off with Drone rigs/hybri/ or electonic supirority with your disruptors. My 2 cents Where is my Damn RIG that lowers sig radius!!!! Dynamic Endeavors is now Recuiting.!! Contact me in game for deatails about the corp. Mostly a PvE corp, with Jump clones avaiale in Empire and 0.0.
Kinsei Isamu	Posted - 2007.01.09 14:47:00 - [30] Edited by: Kinsei Isamu on 09/01/2007 14:48:13 All of this is well and good - but it doesn't change the fact that a 10% speed penalty is just way too much. When have you had trouble tracking a BS with short range guns - assuming it wasn't a nano-<domi/typhoon/...>? Some here maintain that the sigradius IS a penalty. However, they do NOT argue that the penalties are balanced. 10% speed is FAR more severe than 10% sig radius. Especially for large ships.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.