| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Sigras
Conglomo
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
114
   |
Posted - 2012.04.26 20:50:00 -
[331] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Galphii wrote:
Reduce blaster damage a bit then - it's stupid to have to plow a slow-ass blaster boat into 3km range just to put slightly more damage on a target than other weapon systems. Increase range, reduce the damage/tracking accordingly. Do what it takes.
Turning blaster into autocanon is week ; and blaster boat able to dictate range is OP.
Why is that OP? they still have to commit to every single fight. with blasters there are two options:
1. im going to win
2. im going to die.
Unless your opponents are idiots, there is no third option. This is in stark contrast to autocannons which never force you to commit, unless something goes horribly wrong, you should not die in a speed tanked autocannon ship.
but i digress, this is getting a bit off topic. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
282
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 00:36:00 -
[332] - Quote
Blasters boats should be good at sprinting and poor at running...
Autocannon boats should be slower at sprinting and better at running....
I think the best solution to the slow blasterboats can't get in range problem is to rebalance of the afterburner & MWD mods.
Increase MWD speed boost a little... say 600% instead of 500%, but make it consume twice as much cap....
Double the AB speed boost... from 125 to to 250ish... but reduce the agility penalties (i.e... they are still agile)
Essentially, make perma-mwding ships a thing of the past, and make speedy ships (Vagas, stabbers, etc) rely on ab's to be constantly fast.
Adjust ship speeds to maintain a balance between ship classes, sizes, etc...
|
Galphii
Sileo In Pacis
THE SPACE P0LICE
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 02:31:00 -
[333] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Turning blaster into autocanon is week ; and blaster boat able to dictate range is OP.
Increasing effective range on medium blasters from 3km to 6km is not dictating range in the slightest, it just means you don't have to park inside the ass of the ship you're fighting to hit.
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP
This is stupid.
My megathron wants to meet your hyperion and do terrible things to it. |
Sigras
Conglomo
IMPERIAL LEGI0N
115
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 05:25:00 -
[334] - Quote
Galphii wrote:Bouh Revetoile wrote:Active Ttanking = PvE
Passive Tanking = PvP
This is stupid. My megathron wants to meet your hyperion and do terrible things to it.
I would actually probably take that fight . . . I would stand a reasonable chance of winning, now if it were 2v2 that would be another story entirely.
On the topic of rigs, I think a good first step is to give a solid nerf to extender rigs and trimarks. This should probably be in the way of adding a stacking penalty and changing the way they apply their damage,
IE right now the formula is New_Armor = Old_Armor * 1.15 * 1.15 * 1.15 - direct stacking, this works out to be around 52% more armor
My proposal would be to change it to be additive New_Armor = Old_Armor * (1 + .15 + .15 + .15) would work out to be 45% more armor.
That along with a stack nerf so instead of each applying a full 15%, they would apply 15%, 13.05% and 8.55% respectively
Either of these nerfs would make me happy, but I think both of them together are necessary, and that would be a good first step.
Right now the extender rigs and the trimarks are used more than any other rig in their category by an order of magnitude, just look at the numbers traded in jita. This clearly indicates a problem that needs to be taken care of. |
Ken Kyoukan
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 11:47:00 -
[335] - Quote
I know this isn't now going ahead but I would still like to give one suggestion towards this and possible future changes.
The penalties rather than being say a fixed 15% could do with being (based on 15%):
Small Rig: 0.15%
Medium: 1.5%
Large: 15%
XL (if ever): 30%
This would be per rig and does not include the stacking penalty.
2x small rig 0.3% stacking penalty 0.05% maybe, 0.35%
3x small rig 0.45% with ^, 0.55% or similar
This way the larger the ship and more effective the rig the larger the penalty. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 13:52:00 -
[336] - Quote
ItGÇÖs a complicated issue. Splitting Active Armour rigs and Active shield rigs out form the Buffer rigs is probably a good idea, it is the rig penalties that would apply to each group that is probably the sticking point Active armour and Active shield should remain is separate groups with different drawbacks. There would also be a need to adjust rig calibration usage and introduce more rigs into each category to provide different options.
As others have said though rig penalties and calibration costs need looking at across the board some rigs are underused or even not worthwhile.
It does seem to bring us back to the Gallente problem Armour rigs punish speed that they need for the short range weapons systems and astronautics rigs that give speed punish armour tanking.
|
Frio Rinah
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 14:33:00 -
[337] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
What if ACTIVE hardeners only work with ACTIVE tanking...
Hence, PASSIVE tanking is reduced to using PASSIVE hardeners....
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to implement this
Active Hardeners become modules that give all repair modules their resistance bonus? (Doing nothing or being weaker on their own)
E.g. 2 reppers, with 4-5 hardeners, both of those reppers give the resistance bonuses of all hardeners (for an effective 8-10).
Result is paper thin tank without reppers running, but very formidable when they're all active. Could be utilized to provide strong alpha survivability, while falling off long term due to cap.
That would still require a bit of mathematics though in order to work out how to not grant overly excessive resistances. Theres lots of approaches on this angle, and I'm uncertain of which would be best. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
284
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 16:09:00 -
[338] - Quote
Frio Rinah wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
What if ACTIVE hardeners only work with ACTIVE tanking...
Hence, PASSIVE tanking is reduced to using PASSIVE hardeners....
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way to implement this
Active Hardeners become modules that give all repair modules their resistance bonus? (Doing nothing or being weaker on their own) E.g. 2 reppers, with 4-5 hardeners, both of those reppers give the resistance bonuses of all hardeners (for an effective 8-10). Result is paper thin tank without reppers running, but very formidable when they're all active. Could be utilized to provide strong alpha survivability, while falling off long term due to cap. That would still require a bit of mathematics though in order to work out how to not grant overly excessive resistances. Theres lots of approaches on this angle, and I'm uncertain of which would be best.
This is a good implementation.... I would think the passive/active modules need to be reviewed a little (like there is no armor equivalent to IFs, and there are no shield equivalents to EANMs), and the numbers carefully reviewed.... but most ships are fairly well balanced if you implement this....
|
X Gallentius
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Villore Accords
176
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 18:39:00 -
[339] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:It does seem to bring us back to the Gallente problem Armour rigs punish speed that they need for the short range weapons systems and astronautics rigs that give speed punish armour tanking.
Gallente are supposed to favor DPS over EHP in the DPS*EHP race. You would think the dps increase by using hybrid turret rigs ought to make up for the loss in potential increase in EHP due to trimark/shield rigs, but they don't mainly because of the stacking amplification pointed out already (and PG penalty to turret rigs). One way to at least put some choice into this is either nerf the EHP rigs, or buff the DPS rigs (remove their stacking penalty, or reduce PG penalty). |
Jarn Kalden
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.04.27 19:10:00 -
[340] - Quote
In my opinion the problem with active tanking are not only the rig penaltys but the webbers. For active tanking you need to avoid getting hit and just repair the few hits you get. This means you have to achive a higher transversal speed than the enemy turrets can track, which means getting close and then you are in webber range and the "speed tanking" is not possible anymore. Further problem with this are the short range weapons, their optimals are all inside the webber range, for autocannons this gets negated a bit by their huge falloff but blaster loose about 50% dmg if you stay out of webber range. |
Bouh Revetoile
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
16
|
Posted - 2012.04.28 02:16:00 -
[341] - Quote
Jarn Kalden wrote:In my opinion the problem with active tanking are not only the rig penaltys but the webbers. For active tanking you need to avoid getting hit and just repair the few hits you get. This means you have to achive a higher transversal speed than the enemy turrets can track, which means getting close and then you are in webber range and the "speed tanking" is not possible anymore. Further problem with this are the short range weapons, their optimals are all inside the webber range, for autocannons this gets negated a bit by their huge falloff but blaster loose about 50% dmg if you stay out of webber range.
Even with 50% outside of web range, you are very loose with the numbers.
Problem of blasters is not web range, they have the dps for this range ; the problem is that any armor rig kill you speed so much that it''s very difficult to go through. And active tank would like some love too : there is definitely not enough advantages to active tank over buffer. Problem on this is you cannot buff active tank without gimping pve and active tank bonused ships (myrmidon/hyperion for the most known of them).
Fitting requirement of active tank may be explored, but I think the rigs are very responsible for this, with buffer rigs having absolutely no drawbacks for their benefits Maybe nerf total PG/CPU or capacitor for armor/shield buffer rigs (and 10-15% would be good, swap the drone rig penalty for the speed ones if you want ; and resist rigs are actually buffer rigs, active tank only need active tank rigs).
Of course, active tank is not meant to be competitive in fleet, but there must be incentive to use active tank over buffer in small gangs. |
Miner Valendra
Core Mining United Industries
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 10:44:00 -
[342] - Quote
Hi
How about delaying the Rig-changes untill least half the ships in game (Or all subcaps) have been rebalanced?
I really enjoyed how it was Shield for speed and Armor for soaking but this Rigs changes seems bit harsh if this is the new direction. Shield and Velocity.. There is no connection, Adding plates does. I wish CCP keep this game in the state that 'Things' makes sense. If you want to nerf popular/abused ships wait with rigs and start messing with Slot layouts.
I can say i shield tank most of my Gallente because of Slot layout regardless of Bonuses and it works fine.
Give them more Low slots and less Mids and i would be forced to Armor tank them. 4 core factions, 2 core defense lines.
I feel the change of Rigs while Ships are on the era of being rewamped will end in Chaos as we players can only Guess.
Other than just looking at Ships / Rigs / PvP etc. Take a look at those who mission / courier etc they must be thought of too.
Touching rigs touches everyone.
Calculate everything in, including the new rewamped ships balanced (Not true but least faction balanced) I feel these 2 threads which is seprate got more ties together than anything as both will have impact on which ships are being used.
I simply ask you to delay this change.
btw: Resistence rigs should have a daft penalty like adding capacitors. Maybe a minor PG / CPU penalty. (Regardless, Armor or shield, CPU for Armor and PG for Shields? makes little sense but sense in Armor ships get their resistence up without turning off their 5th gun.)
Also; it looks like on a grand scale that your trying to make ships that are fun to fly, paper thin and ment to pop instantly. How can a battle be epic if they ain't lasting? i would understand frigs which in my opinion should 1 shot one another all the time but Cruiser and bigger should be lasting. They fight for Survival and should't be nerfed in anyway. (Other than Drake but thats back to Different Thread)...
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Wraiths of Abaddon
62
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 12:01:00 -
[343] - Quote
Good Changes are good. Keep up the good work CCP. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
70
|
Posted - 2012.04.30 17:50:00 -
[344] - Quote
It is a good thing that you recognize that something needs be done about the buffer/active situation and the rather bland rigs where tanking in concerned, but your idea is flawed in that it doesn't get to the root of the problem as it were.
Rigs are and will always be augmentations that we can apply to existing fits so trying to solve something fundamental like the buffer/active conundrum by changing them is like trying to change to colour of the morning sky by wearing tinted glasses.
Several ideas have been floated the past few years, the two major are as follows;
The one I back is one where both tanking systems are made bursty in nature (shields are already there .. almost) .. high cap cost for near instant gratification.
The other is making active tanking require some sort of "fuel" (other than and on top of cap), leaving everything else in the hands of the pilot.
Combined with a upwards tweak in fitting requirements of buffer options, you;ll end up with active becoming worthwhile on the small scale ..
In short: Good initiative, but sort the actual problem and start tweaking what is in essence accessories after the fact. If rigs are you primary concern then all you need do is tweak them slightly so that no "choice" made is needlessly penalised compared to another. |
Asmodes Reynolds
Rayn Enterprises
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 08:52:00 -
[345] - Quote
***warning**** ***warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning******
controversial opinion incoming like it or don't I don't really care it's my opinion
***warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning*******warning****
Passive and active tank, this is something that I think is very misleading. I think more what you should be looking to balance is overall HP versus self repair. Take the Drake for example completely passive fit can have us up to a 150 to 250 peak shield recharge but it's not active tank.
Modules allow you to repair your own ship you either shield or armor should de-buffed your amount of HP and but take less capacitor or fitting requirement. That would be the easiest way to balance the problem you're referring to. Shield boosters alike not being useful in PVP. |
Tarn Kugisa
Space Mongolian
Pinked
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 23:58:00 -
[346] - Quote
My signature is saying the exact opposite of these changes.
Do Not Want
I Endorse this Product and/or Service
[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=16580[/url] |
Detenal
Imperial Guardians
The Aurora Shadow
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 00:37:00 -
[347] - Quote
Quote:Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing.
I disagree. Passive tanks will just be sitting ducks, where Active tanks will become easier to hit. Lose/lose. What's the point of this?
Passive Shield Tanks: Boost Shield Recharge at cost of increased power requirements. (Less grid power)
Passive Armor Tanks: Boost Armor Repair Rate at cost of increased Sig radius.
Active Shield Tank: Boost Shield Charge per Cycle at cost of increased power requirements.
Active Armor Tank: Boost Armor repair rate at cost of increased Sig radius and CPU requirements. (Smaller % though)
Something maybe like this?
Rig's that enhance Passive tank bonuses should require power. Shields = Energy usage. Why does this affect speed? Perhaps for Armor Rig's, shield no.
Active shield tanks require modules to repair said shield, and in turn use power. Boosts to Active shield Rig boosts should require more Grid, CPU, or maybe a small percentage to both. |
TATTOO'S
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 03:20:00 -
[348] - Quote
Do not do this unless active tanking is going to become a VIABLE option for more ships in PVP. Sure there are a few now - like the x-large boosted cyclone etc but those tend to be more skill dependent and often as now some old hats out playing around.
If this does go down - bomber pilots rejoice! |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 12:42:00 -
[349] - Quote
Agree with many of the comments that suggest that active tanking needs looking at as a whole. Still that is not a reason to not iterate on the rigs.
How about Penalties to the layer below the active layer punishing the ship more should the active tank fail.
Modifying ship internal structures to provide conduit access for Armour repair energy wastage to be fed back through the ships engines have allowed the removal of the speed disadvantages provided by previous Armour repair enhancements
Active Armour Rigs - Penalty to Structure
+Sig reducing rig
+Rig to reduce power needs of armour repairerGÇÖs Low calibration so does not compete with ACR
Recent advancements have allowed the modification of armour surface layers to better absorb the energy residue produced by enhancing certain shield capabilities, this modification results in slightly decreased surface armour strength while allowing for better shield boosting performance.
Active Shield Rigs - Penalty to Armour
+weak Omni shield resist rig
+Rig to reduce CPU
Passive Shield and Armour Rigs stay as is.
|
Alara IonStorm
2065
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
Have you ever considered just scrapping penalties.
I mean every ship in PvP is rigged now days even the new player ships. The incentive do to cost not to rig them is long since dead to the point where if you don't rig them there is something wrong you and if you are new and don't rig them the only reason is you haven't learned about rigs yet.
I say scrap the penalties across the board. Extenders mess with Sig, Plates mess with mass, Boosters suck cap fast, Reppers slow.
Rigs support that. Done.
|
ValentinaDLM
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
487
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:15:00 -
[351] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Blasters boats should be good at sprinting and poor at running...
Autocannon boats should be slower at sprinting and better at running....
I think the best solution to the slow blasterboats can't get in range problem is to rebalance of the afterburner & MWD mods.
Increase MWD speed boost a little... say 600% instead of 500%, but make it consume twice as much cap....
Double the AB speed boost... from 125 to to 250ish... but reduce the agility penalties (i.e... they are still agile)
Essentially, make perma-mwding ships a thing of the past, and make speedy ships (Vagas, stabbers, etc) rely on ab's to be constantly fast.
Adjust ship speeds to maintain a balance between ship classes, sizes, etc...
At first this sounded crazy, but it isn't really a half bad idea, I think to be implented right, Gallente would need a fair bit of cap buffer and minmatar cap recharge. But i have long been a proponent of the idea if you want to run your mad nonstop you should need to fit a cap booster so that you do indeed have limits, this is really a more elegant solution to that issue. |
ValentinaDLM
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
487
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:16:00 -
[352] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Blasters boats should be good at sprinting and poor at running...
Autocannon boats should be slower at sprinting and better at running....
I think the best solution to the slow blasterboats can't get in range problem is to rebalance of the afterburner & MWD mods.
Increase MWD speed boost a little... say 600% instead of 500%, but make it consume twice as much cap....
Double the AB speed boost... from 125 to to 250ish... but reduce the agility penalties (i.e... they are still agile)
Essentially, make perma-mwding ships a thing of the past, and make speedy ships (Vagas, stabbers, etc) rely on ab's to be constantly fast.
Adjust ship speeds to maintain a balance between ship classes, sizes, etc...
At first this sounded crazy, but it isn't really a half bad idea, I think to be implented right, Gallente would need a fair bit of cap buffer and minmatar cap recharge. But i have long been a proponent of the idea if you want to run your mad nonstop you should need to fit a cap booster so that you do indeed have limits, this is really a more elegant solution to that issue. |
Angelus Ryan
Ama Nesciri.
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 08:32:00 -
[353] - Quote
This is a terrible idea. Ships that rely on speed and range control already rely a lot on running a MWD because ABs are too slow for nearly every ship. You want these ships to run active tanks while running a MWD to keep their range? Great, but where's the cap going to come from?
Are you going to boost minnie/gal cap levels and recharge? Doubt it.
Are you going to give all "speed" ships additional bonuses to active tanking? Doubt it.
Are you going to reduce cap booster size? Doubt it.
The current rig penalty system works just fine. If you want to make active tanking viable, you need to fix active tanking by itself (and not just try to kill off the alternative), but that won't be easy if the current paradigm of damage is kept. Active tanks can keep up with a limited amount of enemies and then they fail horribly (or get neuted to death), and they also eat massive amounts of capacitor. You can't fix the first without completely changing the damage model and to fix the second you would need to massively reduce the amount of capacitor required for active tanking.
Nerfing what is one of the few viable solo vs small gang (or small gang vs. larger gang) combat options (go fast, carry buffer to soak up damage, MWD a lot, hit at range and avoid being caught because being caught is death) is not going to make PvP better. It will only make it worse. The really large fleets probably won't care either way, but small gangs get screwed.
Now, if you could run an active tank while remaining mobile and without consuming totally insane amounts of cap boosters, then the idea of "speed is active, slow is buffered" is probably more or less viable. At the current cap consumption levels for active tanks, that's just impossible and should be thrown out of the nearest airlock.
Finally, buffer will slow you down (thus make it easier to catch you and kill you) and an active tank will bloom your sig (which will make it easier to hit you, and thus make it even harder to active-tank). Who the heck thought this was a good idea?
Rethink this, please, before you screw up, badly.
Just my 2c. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 13:13:00 -
[354] - Quote
Although I do not like the changes in the current form, people keep bringing up the problem of active tanking and a drawback increasing sig radius, at level 4 a 6% increase in sig radius would not counteract bonus of an armour rig or really even change the quality of incoming hits, also the ship would be faster and this is also factored into the missile and turret formula. Plus this is already a drawback for active shield tanking.
A thorax with a 6% increase in sig including microwarpdrive sig bloom would change from 840m to 884m yet gain 92m/s over the current armour version. At Afterburner speed the change in sig is even smaller.
Cap, speed and fitting are the problems with active armour.
|
Debir Achen
EVE University
Ivy League
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 14:38:00 -
[355] - Quote
Rig calibration costs wonky for CDFE and Trimarks? Agreed.
Compare:
CDFE, calibration 50, shield +15%
Missile Calefaction Catalyst, calibration 200, damage +10% (stacking penalised)
Missile Loading Bay Accelerator, calibration 200, rof +10% (stacking penalised)
Large Shield Extender II, shield +2625, med slot
Ballistic Control System II, rof+10.5%, damage+10%, low slot (stacking penalised)
Two DPS rigs fill your calibration, but give less bonus than a single BCS II.
A single CDFE uses almost no calibration, but gives as many hit points as an LSE II if your total shield HP is 17500. That's quite a bit, but a buffer rokh with twin LSE II has 17187.5 at Shield Management V. Throw on a second CDFE and you're way over the break-even point, without stacking penalty, and with 300 calibration to spare on a T1 ship.
That said, there is a sense where favouring tank over gank makes for a more interesting game, in that it gives more time for people to react and change strategy. Glass cannons is a lot more boring that extended cut and thrust.
Some thoughts on buffer vs cap:
* Buffer:
Scales with DPS, cap lite, unaffected by time, no action required
* Active:
Twin balancing act:
- repair vs time
- repair vs cap
Requires action
Weakness vs alpha
Possible changes and consequences:
(1) Active tanks require almost no cap if not damaged.
Solves lag attention issues. "Easy mode"? AFK missioning easier.
(2) Limit regen rate primarily by cap.
Even single repper can repair lots of damage, if it can pull enough cap.
"Active tanking" becomes "cap tanking".
- does this give Caldari and Minmatar advantage due to cap-less weapons?
(3) Damage mitigation module
Example: rather than apply damage directly, absorbs all damage, and then releases (say) 30% current store + 100 hp every second. Turns alpha into DPS.
Makes logistics more powerful, since they only have to match 30% DPS, not all of it.
Workaround: disable remote assistance while module active.
Cap requirements? Small? BIg? Small then big under fire? Low cap is probably OK, because ship still needs to deal with the inbound damage (using cap-hungry reppers).
Feels very "gamey". Does this become mandatory for any active repper? If effectively mandatory, should it be just rolled into the repper itself? Alternatively, could multiple modules be used and slow down the roll-out rate?
Also helps protect buffer tanks vs alpha - you still might take killing damage, but will have a short while to live before it actually affects you. But as long as it prevents remote rep, a purely buffer tank ship will still die as damage bleeds into it. |
Aversun
Systems Federation
Coalition of Galactic Unity
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:57:00 -
[356] - Quote
This one admits to being a passive draker only, but would a booster/rep cycle reduction on ships intended for active tanks help?
This one also admits to TL;DRskim of the thread. Walls of text made my eyes shrivel |
Raimo
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
46
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:43:00 -
[357] - Quote
I don't really like it.
At least fix damage & ROF rigs first! (calibration, effect amount, they are just too underpowered and hard to fit atm) also, make it so that resist rigs give less penalty or no penalty at all compared to HP rigs. (Or maybe 50% of both penalties?)
Also why not introduce stacking to HP rigs finally? And maybe just remove all penalties from active rigs? (Or just remove the speed penalty from active armor rigs?)
But IMO active tanking might need other kinds of help... |
Ogopogo Mu
United Highsec Front
The 99 Percent
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:04:00 -
[358] - Quote
Most of the replies here fall into these categories:
- OMG NOOO MY SPEED MY PRECIOUS SPEED FU CCP
- ACTIVE TANKING SUCKS FORGET IT KTHX AND MY SPEEEEEEEED
It seems like the original intent is to help make active tanking more attractive in PVP, or maybe just more attractive in general. Without rehashing all the arguments against active tanking in anything larger than a small gang situation (and then only with certain hulls), if active tanking buffing is the goal, then changing rig behavior is a sort of roundabout way to do it that increases potential failure points. It's not a bad goal, as active tanking requires a lot more SP to work, and most of those SP turn out wasted when you realize how poorly it performs in most situations. Fortunately, there's a simple solution.
Just increase the effectiveness of repair modules.
Then start a new thread titled, "Repair module change discussion for Inferno." |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
46
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:55:00 -
[359] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno. It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes passive tanking would now have a penalty to ship velocity instead of signature radius. Any kind of armor / shield rig that promotes active tanking would now have a penalty to ship signature radius instead of velocity. Penalty amount themselves are not changing. Rig list:
- Passive rigs: any kind of resistance, HP gain, shield recharge rate, shield powergrid reduction rig
- Active rigs: any kind of repair / boost amount, repair / boost capacitor reduction, repair / boost cycle rate or remote repair / boost rig
EDIT: As mentioned here, this is not on the "Test Server Feedback" forum as no implementation has started, this is just a concept that was passed along and that we wanted to discuss early on before proceeding further. Tweaked first paragraph on this post to reflect that, apologies for the confusion. EDIT 2: Second reply here, basically this is not being released.
I like it. Minmatar ships should not be able to so easily fit Shield Extenders without some kind of penalty. I like the speed penalty to passive tanking. Also a nerf to 100mn Tengus which is a good thing. |
Sunviking
The Shining Knights
46
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:03:00 -
[360] - Quote
Istvaan Shogaatsu wrote:Caldari ships are already the slowest around. This would make the buffer variants slower still. I am not sure this is a good thing.
I am Caldari too and I have no problem with it. When a ship is already that slow, it makes no difference to make it slower still.
One of the points of these changes is to stop certain PvP ship setups from being overpowered, like 100mn Tech3 for example. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |