| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rob Mattacks
   |
Posted - 2004.05.23 08:20:00 -
[1]
I thought that both cap relays and cap recharges were getting a stacking nerf. In the devblog though it says that cap relays will get the shield boosting penalty which was gonna be the case some time ago.
It is early so i could be missing something but with some cap recharges getting a boost and, as I see it, no penalty in the upcoming patch, isn't this totally biased towards armor tanking ? The armor tankers that get a whole load of grid will also able to have a good cap recharge rate with no penalty whilst the shield tankers will have to use pdu which for one, are not as effective on cap recharge, and two, take more cpu to fit.
I also thought that the full tanking set ups were being nerfed because it was a no brainer but now the ships with increased grid for armor have now got another no brainer and the fact that these ships were gonna be restricted by cpu can probably be solved with one Co-Processor 2 while ships like raven and tempest will have to sacriface more now to get a good weapons config in comparison....
|
Shadowsword
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 09:18:00 -
[2]
Currently Cap relays are:
+XX% to cap recharge rate
-XX% to shield recharge rate.
In theory it was balanced. In reality, shield recharge time is so long that it's maybe the most useless stat of a ship. Besides, the fact a lot of users were abusing it, obtaining insane recharge rates (and putting 7 cap relays in a ship IS abusing it) and that shields boosters allowed such users to recharge their shields in far less time that without cap relays, is utterly ridiculous in a balancing point of view.
Cap recharge time of under 150s for a BS is an abberation, and I'm glad the Devs are about make it impossible.
Now, I fail to see how armor tanked BS will have uber cap recharge. Most of them have 4 meds and 7 lows, that make:
Low slots: 5 slots for armor tanking, 1 slot for damage mod, 1 slot left for cap recharge.
Med slots: 1 slot for sensor booster or tracking comp, 1 slot for webbifier or warp scrambler, 2 slots left for cap recharge.
So, even by making sacrifices, you only have 3 mods for cap recharge.
A shield tanked Raven, making the same sacrifices that the configuration above, can use 4 low slots for cap recharge.
Oh, and you're not supposed to have a good offensive config and a good defensive config in the same package, I tought you were aware of that. Try to make an armor tanked Mega with 6 railguns and a cap recharge able to sustain it and you'll see .
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 09:45:00 -
[3]
I think you have missed my point. I know that cap relays were not balanced and I know the old penalty was not actually a penalty because shield recharge is a useless stat. I realise that you are not supposed to have full weapon compliment when tanking.
I thought that cap relays and cap recharges were all getting a stacking nerf but, as i understand it from devblog, cap rechargers won't get a penalty but cap relays will. This will mean that the armor defence based ship's will have a cap recharge advantage cos cap recharges are more effective than pdu's.
|
Kashre
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 09:52:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Rob Mattacks
I think you have missed my point. I know that cap relays were not balanced and I know the old penalty was not actually a penalty because shield recharge is a useless stat. I realise that you are not supposed to have full weapon compliment when tanking.
I thought that cap relays and cap recharges were all getting a stacking nerf but, as i understand it from devblog, cap rechargers won't get a penalty but cap relays will. This will mean that the armor defence based ship's will have a cap recharge advantage cos cap recharges are more effective than pdu's.
Armor tank setups take a lot more powergrid and more low slots to be really effective compared to shield tanks though. Especially after the new patch when L armor repairers are going to take 2000MW. Also, the ships with enough low slots to armor tank well (typhoon, arma, etc) have few mid slots. I dont fly amarr but the typhoon certainly doesnt have enough to support 2 L repairers, or even 1 L and 1 M tech 2 reparier for very long on just 4 cap charger II. Especially if you want something useful, like a warp disruptor or sensor booster.
so I *think* it ballances out, although I have not extensively tested and compared armor tanks vs shield tanks with the new system yet.
+++
It's called "low security space" for a reason. |
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 10:01:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Rob Mattacks on 23/05/2004 10:07:36
Ye i understand what you are saying but i did not mean to run the armor repairer constantly but module for module armor tankers can achieve better cap recharge as they will generally have more mids free than ship using shield defence which will have very few if any mid slots free. The stacking nerf on both modules sounds a much better way of doing it imo.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 10:06:00 -
[6]
Uhm, have you even thought about the CONS of using an armor tank? No? Let me enlighten you..
1. Your buffer is the first thing to go, so if your tank fails you=dead
2. Takes up most low slots leaving little or no room for damage mods
3. No room for warpcore stabs unless you ditch out on dmg mods
3. Midslots devoted to keeping up recharge rate, less room for EW
Do some research next time.
________________________________________________________
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 10:11:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Rob Mattacks on 23/05/2004 10:13:46
what !! Raven and tempest will have no room for ew modules using shield defence, if they both fit 2 warp core stabs and a damage mod then they are left with 2 and 3 low slots respectively to boost cap recharge or fitting upgrades. I am talking about balance between 2 modules cap relays and cap recharges.
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 10:14:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Meridius
Uhm, have you even thought about the CONS of using an armor tank? No? Let me enlighten you..
1. Your buffer is the first thing to go, so if your tank fails you=dead
2. Takes up most low slots leaving little or no room for damage mods
3. No room for warpcore stabs unless you ditch out on dmg mods
3. Midslots devoted to keeping up recharge rate, less room for EW
Do some research next time.
Um, and shield tanking:
2. True with shield tanking too, you need lots of lowslots for power diags and possibly cap relays.
3. True with shield tanking too, see above.
4. True with shield tanking too, you NEED shield booster + 2 hardeners for a regular tank setup, a shield boost amp is also nice. That's 4 medslots and at least 4 lowslots in total...
Don't get me wrong, what I want is balance and not my ship to be uber.
Also, when using the argument that armor tanking is powergrid intensive.
2000MW is 8,2% of the new apocs powergrid (with eng. 5)
200CPU (XL shield booster) is 22.57% of the new ravens CPU (with elec. 5)
|
John McCreedy
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 10:42:00 -
[9]
The penalty on chaos is -10% to Shield Boosting, not -25% Shield Recharge. This makes shield tanking less effective. One idea maybe to lower it's cap recharge rate to the same as a Medium slot recharger and add a stacking nerf.
Make a difference
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:10:00 -
[10]
Don't forget that
- there is no XL armor rep (=> tanking needs an extra slot)
- when tanking on an apoc and using only 2 hardeners, lowest resistance is 35% (when using 2 shieldhardeners, lowest resistance is 40%)
- there are no named armor hardeners
- there is no recharge for armor (sure the effect of the basic shieldrecharge is small, but it is noticeable)
... and of course what meridius said, armor tanking definately takes up more slots, and therefore leaves none for WCS in the lows and none for EW in the meds. A raven can fit a single EW mod without sacrifising too much, for apoc its totally impossible.
|
|
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:39:00 -
[11]
Ye but to be on par with 2 large armor repairers you need a x-large shield booster and an amp anyway, plus armor tanking uses less cap. Anyway back on topic i think that what john said, a stacking nerf for both cap relay and cap recharges and reduce the % of recharge on cap relays to match rechargers seems a more balanced way to do things....
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:40:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Hellek
Don't forget that
- there is no XL armor rep (=> tanking needs an extra slot)
- when tanking on an apoc and using only 2 hardeners, lowest resistance is 35% (when using 2 shieldhardeners, lowest resistance is 40%)
... and of course what meridius said, armor tanking definately takes up more slots, and therefore leaves none for WCS in the lows and none for EW in the meds. A raven can fit a single EW mod without sacrifising too much, for apoc its totally impossible.
I don't agree.
- There's no real need for an XL armor rep either, use a "multispectral" hardener instead.
- 5% this 5% that? TBH I wouldn't care if it was the other way around.
Also I disagree with armor tanking using more low slots.
Large armor rep, 3 hardeners, cap booster = 5 slots
XL, 3 hardeners, amp, 4 cap relays = 9 slots, 5 without cap relays but you're gonna need 'em. Otherwise XL, 3 hardeners, amp and cap booster, also more than 5 slots.
Add to that, armor tanking is more cap effective.
And I'm still armor tanking.
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:50:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Hellek on 23/05/2004 15:52:46
Jarjar, please try to use one of the "multispectral" hardeners, you will see that they are pretty useless, by far not sufficient for tanking. If CCP changed the stacking forumla for hardeners, they might be, but at the moment there is really not much point in using them for tanking.
Also, with good skills, cap use on armor reps is not lower than on shield boosters, its about the same (if the SB is used with AMP).
I don't say that armor tanking would suck, but it has big drawbacks and therefore disagree with what Rob says (that armor tanking would be better than shield tanking). They are about equal (and if one of them is superior, then its definately shieldtanking), and whether armor or shieldtanking is to be prefered depends on the ship and the setup.
Also, don't try to tell me that shieldtanking would need 5 slots, we all know that it can easily be done with 4, otherwise it would not be the case that many people think that (without a CPR nerf) the Apoc is too good as shieldtank.
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:52:00 -
[14]
A cap relay stacking penalty would have been the easiest and less drastic way that CCP could have addressed the "shield tanking" issue, but instead they decided on a totally unliked and unpopular change ignoring everyones concerns.
The med cap recharger stacking penalty that CCP is Chaos testing is design spefically to limit the defensive options of Caldari pilots.
They both suck.
|
Hellek
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:54:00 -
[15]
yuuknow: please explain to me why a medslot cap recharger stacking penalty hurts the caldari (which are shieldtanking). I rather think it hurts the amarr (which are usually armor tanking).
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:54:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Hellek
Also, don't try to tell me that shieldtanking would need 5 slots, we all know that it can easily be done with 4, otherwise it would not be the case that many people think that (without a CPR nerf) the Apoc is too good as shieldtank.
Those setups often use as many as 11 slots though...
XL, EM/thermal hardeners, amp, and 7 cap relys.
Yes, I obviously count the cap modules too, without them your tank is no tank.
|
Rob Mattacks
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 15:58:00 -
[17]
I have not said that armor tanking is better than shield tanking or vice versa hellek. What I think though is that a stacking nerf for both cap relays and cap rechargers would be more balanced IMO...
|
fras
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 16:01:00 -
[18]
Edited by: fras on 23/05/2004 16:05:45
Wasn't there talk of having a shield boosting bonus to Power diags? That would even things out without having to nerf modules.
Also, even though cap relays are useful for armour tanking, I don't think many realistic TQ setups would use them. Even on a mega or typhoon with 7 slots there's only 2 slots left after the armour tanking modules for damage mods/warp stabs etc.
|
Gail
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 16:05:00 -
[19]
Could you post the stats on nerfed Cap Relays plz.
Any idea how badly this will hurt cruisers?
-------------------------------------
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 16:06:00 -
[20]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 23/05/2004 16:17:45
Originally by: Hellek
yuuknow: please explain to me why a medslot cap recharger stacking penalty hurts the caldari (which are shieldtanking). I rather think it hurts the amarr (which are usually armor tanking).
On Chaos, many caldari pilots overcame the cap relay nerf by switching to armor tanking. Large armor repairs and armor hardeners were used in conjunction with med slots filled with med cap rechargers giving the Raven & Scorpion significant armor tanking ability.
TomB and the rest didn't like this so their trying to stop it. Lowering the Raven powergrid while increasing the powergrid requirements of the armor repairers as well as increasing the powergrid of the other battleships. And by Making med cap recharger stacking penalized to keep them from loading up their med slots.
They are nerfing caldari shield tanking ability as well as keeping them from armor tanking.
EDIT: Grammar
|
|
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 16:39:00 -
[21]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 23/05/2004 16:56:14
The caldari "overpower" (or everyone else "underpower") could have been addressed in several simpler ways.
-Cap Relays could have had a stacking penalty
-Shield Hardener powergrid/cpu requirements could have been increased
-Shield Hardener cap usage could have been increased
-Armor Repairer cap usage could have been decreased to make armor tankers more balanced
-Missle Launcher cap usage could have been increased
Any single one of these tweaks could have been effective IMO, but instead this complicated and unpopular route of mods is being attempted which many are complete against and have split the Eve population somewhat. Some of the most experienced and dedicated caldari pilots that I know are completely dissatified with the way this has been handled and are now planing to move on to other upcoming MMORPGs.
This was poorly done.
EDIT:Grammar
|
digitalwanderer
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 16:54:00 -
[22]
this won't stop from the the following happening...
Apocs using 8 rails and shieild tanking,instead of armour tanking...Even if it means sacrificing 1~2 slots for CPU co processors and still leaving 5 lows for power cap relays...If you combine that with the apocs bonuses wich will doubled and have really good engeneering skills,it's a hard package to beat no matter what.
|
John McCreedy
|
Posted - 2004.05.23 17:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: digitalwanderer
this won't stop from the the following happening...
Apocs using 8 rails and shieild tanking,instead of armour tanking...Even if it means sacrificing 1~2 slots for CPU co processors and still leaving 5 lows for power cap relays...If you combine that with the apocs bonuses wich will doubled and have really good engeneering skills,it's a hard package to beat no matter what.
Again, unless it's changed in the last couple of days, there is a -10% Penalty to Shield Boosting on he Cap Relay on Chaos.
This has probably been an ill thought out way to stop the Amarr from Shield Tanking but what it actually does is make it harder for Caldari ships to tank. To Shield Tank you need a good Cap recharge rate. PDU's cannot compare to Cap Relays in Cap Recharge rats.
Sure we can sacrifice a Med slot or two for Cap Rechargers but you aren't much of a tank then. Plus, generally speaking, Caldari pilots fit Warp Scramblers so your target doesn't warp out when you launch missiles.
Prehaps the fairest way to balance things would be a fitting cap, i.e. say no more than 3 (or whatever) can be fitted.
Make a difference
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |