open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [issue] Imbalance between remote shield and armor remote repair module
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.10 10:08:00 - [31]
 

Sokratez, please stop trolling. This isn't about Logistics cruisers, which are well balanced. This is about the relative ease of fitting of RR on non-specialised ships.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.10 10:09:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Rip Minner
No just no this has been gone over 100 times in 100 differnt post. Just say no.

Shields work differntly then armor end of story.

Then why not increase PG cost of RR armor with 200% or something, then it is relative equal to the CPU cost of shield transporters, and they are still different. Or lets increase cap use of RR armor by factor 5, then they are different than shield transporters, and apparently that is what you want.

There is a difference between different and clearly inferior. They are different, shield transporters do shield, armor do armor. Shield transporters rep at beginning of cycle (also another reason why sebos are less important than on RR armor ships), RR armor is significantly more cap efficient, but cant be overloaded as long. All balanced so far. But being different does not mean one needs to be impossible to fit.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.10 10:22:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Sokratez, please stop trolling. This isn't about Logistics cruisers, which are well balanced. This is about the relative ease of fitting of RR on non-specialised ships.


I am very much not trolling, but maybe, before one tries to 'fix' something that in one limited perception appears broken, one should find out from the people who designed the system whether it is performing as expected at all?

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:09:00 - [34]
 

Quote:
I am very much not trolling, but maybe, before one tries to 'fix' something that in one limited perception appears broken, one should find out from the people who designed the system whether it is performing as expected at all?

Well, I am sorry for having to use only my own limited perception, but that is the only perception I have available. And about finding out, should we wait for CCP dev that was coming up with stats for these modules to respond in this thread? That might take quite a while...

In that case we should not move the "Trash it" button either. Maybe they put it there intentionally, and every day somebody trashes their carrier as intended by CCP. No problem there, working as intended.

Regardless of CCP's thought, or more likely it's absence, that went into putting Trash it button next to Activate ship, we want it moved. Same thing here. What CCP though back in 2003 does not matter. What matters is there is a problem to be solved. If you don't like the solution, propose a better one, or give constructive criticism. If you don't like my "Limited perception"- please be my eye opener. I would expect better then "I have no idea wtf you two are talking about" from you.




Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:39:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III
Sokratez, please stop trolling. This isn't about Logistics cruisers, which are well balanced. This is about the relative ease of fitting of RR on non-specialised ships.


I am very much not trolling, but maybe, before one tries to 'fix' something that in one limited perception appears broken, one should find out from the people who designed the system whether it is performing as expected at all?


Translation.

"People who designed the system" = CCP. You expect CCP to tell us whether RR BS gangs are "performing as expected"? And whatever this "expectation" is?

This isn't the forum for "CCP telling us stuff". There's no forum for that. This forum is for the proposal of changes to the game. I've supported this proposal with a wealth of evidence. You've blathered about irrelevancies.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:45:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III
Sokratez, please stop trolling. This isn't about Logistics cruisers, which are well balanced. This is about the relative ease of fitting of RR on non-specialised ships.


I am very much not trolling, but maybe, before one tries to 'fix' something that in one limited perception appears broken, one should find out from the people who designed the system whether it is performing as expected at all?


Translation.

"People who designed the system" = CCP. You expect CCP to tell us whether RR BS gangs are "performing as expected"? And whatever this "expectation" is?

This isn't the forum for "CCP telling us stuff". There's no forum for that. This forum is for the proposal of changes to the game. I've supported this proposal with a wealth of evidence. You've blathered about irrelevancies.



You can of course just petition it and ask them, but that would be way too easy.

Slick O'Hara
Morshu's Palace of Pain
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:00:00 - [37]
 

Shield tankers already have the drake to work with, now they complain about armour tanks being OPed. You pretty much answered your own proposal in the first paragraph, shield tankers have access to insane resistances; why should they get equal remote repairs?

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:15:00 - [38]
 

First of all, i am not a shield tanker.
Second, the large shield extenders are crap
Third, shieldtank takes away valuable mid-slots
Quote:
Shield tankers already have the drake to work with

Right, so a typhoon pilot is not allowed to fit a shield transfer because drake is too good? that's a solid argument!

Slick O'Hara
Morshu's Palace of Pain
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:55:00 - [39]
 

Shield tanks get,

Passive tanking abilities
Active omni resistance boosters
An active tanking implant set
Decent remote repping skills

But you don't use them apparently, but are still whining for a boost. You think maybe you have too much time on your hands?

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.10 13:37:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Slick O'Hara
Shield tanks get,

Passive tanking abilities
Active omni resistance boosters
An active tanking implant set
Decent remote repping skills

But you don't use them apparently, but are still whining for a boost. You think maybe you have too much time on your hands?

Armor tank gets:
Better buffer tanks
Passive omni resistance boosters
A buffer tanking implant set
Decent remote repping skills
Remote repping rig

How is all this relevant that shield transporters take ridiculous amount of CPU?

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.10 15:42:00 - [41]
 

Quote:
How is all this relevant that shield transporters take ridiculous amount of CPU?

Fistme
Posted - 2010.07.10 17:08:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III
Sokratez, please stop trolling. This isn't about Logistics cruisers, which are well balanced. This is about the relative ease of fitting of RR on non-specialised ships.


I am very much not trolling, but maybe, before one tries to 'fix' something that in one limited perception appears broken, one should find out from the people who designed the system whether it is performing as expected at all?


because nothing deemed "balanced" at one time has ever been changed...Rolling Eyes

stop falling back on the "ccp made it this way" cop out and start actually taking part in the discussion beyond bad trolling...





Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.10 17:58:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 10/07/2010 18:00:34
Originally by: Fistme
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Gypsio III
Sokratez, please stop trolling. This isn't about Logistics cruisers, which are well balanced. This is about the relative ease of fitting of RR on non-specialised ships.


I am very much not trolling, but maybe, before one tries to 'fix' something that in one limited perception appears broken, one should find out from the people who designed the system whether it is performing as expected at all?


because nothing deemed "balanced" at one time has ever been changed...Rolling Eyes

stop falling back on the "ccp made it this way" cop out and start actually taking part in the discussion beyond bad trolling...





Way to post something totally irrelevant. I am not copping out in any way, I am simply saying that before you can start proposing solutions you should ask CCP how they think the system is functioning.

1) Shield transfers on logistics are totally fine
2) I agree that shield BS gangs aren't exactly overwhelming - but is a simple reduction of module stats the solution or is there a larger, underlying problem (hint: yes, there are several)

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.10 18:07:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 10/07/2010 18:25:42
WTF is the CSM for if not for raising issues and ideas?

If CCP would think it is not working as they want it, then it wouldnt need to be raised since they would be aware of it. The entire idea of the CSM is to raise problems and ideas to CCP. Did you first ask CCP how shield gang bonuses are supposed to work before you made that topic? Did you ask them how capacitor recharge when logging off is supposed to work?

It is as simple as fixing one number (look, even easier than fixing rockets). Yes there will be other problems that wont result in very high popularity of shield BS RR gangs, but then at least they can be done as effective as armor RR. Of course it wont be as popular, there are just more armor tanking BS than shield tankers, amarr players whine when excluded, etc, but then it would be a viable option at least.

But there are no underlying problems as you claim that would really make it a problem. No tackle? We got dedicated tackle for a reason, especially hics. No offensive ewar? I pretty much never see them on RR BS. No sebos/eccm? Well you got higher sig radius already so sebos not that much needed, but that is a weakness. And with not everyone and their mother having falcon alt anymore low slot ECCM modules will do fine, especially since the extra locked targets are nice for RR BS.
Of course i rather have the extra available mids a RR armor gang has. But at the same time a RR shield gang can fit their lows with damage mods and tracking enhancers, so just more effective damage.

However right now you dont have that advantage of more low slots, since you got to fill them with co-procs to get enough cpu.

Little Fistter
Caldari
Ordo Rosa Crux Templaris
Posted - 2010.07.10 18:54:00 - [45]
 

OK, the issue is that passive shield tanks do not benefit from the implants, or booster bonuses, but a passive ship with a shield transfer would be nearly unstoppable.

Making shield transfer as efficient as armor repair would make shield tank gangs tought to damage. Way more than a coorsponding boost to remote armor repping would cause.

Lastly, would it really be a different race's defensive system if they were all equal? The balance is not in detailed system by system equalivalense, it is in the overall balance, ship class to ship class. A Drake and a Myrmidion are vastly different, but in a hundred head to head bsattles there would likely be parity in outcomes.

Fistme
Posted - 2010.07.10 18:57:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz

2) I agree that shield BS gangs aren't exactly overwhelming - but is a simple reduction of module stats the solution or is there a larger, underlying problem (hint: yes, there are several)


omg... flip flopping already? Dude... please stop assuming that this community is filled with idiots, because unfortunately for you, it's not... I did not have much respect for your points prior to this post but now you've shown you're not even willing to stick with your original "argument"... yuck

You ARE using a cop out. Your solution to petition ccp on their opinion is not only a run around but also annoying to gms answering those pointless petitions you suggest... What are they gana do, call iceland from germany to ask a game developer's opinion on a single petition? wow bro...

People have been asking for ccp's point of view on "issues" for a long time. Guess what almost never happens? An actual response... Honestly I hope I'm wrong and i hope that ccp will become more transparent with their opinions... but regardless if ccp deems something as "working as intended" it does not mean that it is balanced, hence the debates taking place on this board for over 7 years that have directly impacted the future of the game...

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.10 20:18:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Fistme


You ARE using a cop out. Your solution to petition ccp on their opinion is not only a run around but also annoying to gms answering those pointless petitions you suggest... What are they gana do, call iceland from germany to ask a game developer's opinion on a single petition? wow bro...


Actually I have done this several times in the past and have (eventually) gotten a satisfying reply in every case. Don't diss it because it sounds too easy.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.10 20:46:00 - [48]
 

Well, you aren't getting a satisfying reply from me.
on that note, why?

Illmuri
Posted - 2010.07.11 04:13:00 - [49]
 

Thumbs down.

OP fails to take in account the system as a whole. Put your blinders on and exclude everything outside your narrow view ("but we are not talking about logistics ships") and then complain when your post is dismissed by a CSM member for being the ridiculous and unreasoned idea that it is. Further resort to personal attacks on the professionalism, character, and usefulness of a CSM because you dont have any good facts to back up your RR module argument.

Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD
Posted - 2010.07.11 07:54:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Illmuri
Thumbs down.

OP fails to take in account the system as a whole. Put your blinders on and exclude everything outside your narrow view ("but we are not talking about logistics ships") and then complain when your post is dismissed by a CSM member for being the ridiculous and unreasoned idea that it is. Further resort to personal attacks on the professionalism, character, and usefulness of a CSM because you dont have any good facts to back up your RR module argument.

The only numbers i gave are fitting requirements, and they are the only numbers that are relevant.
You, on the other hand, fail to give me any examples of anything of importance that has been excluded by by narrow view and not taken into account. Be specific if you want your opinion to be considered. What is the system as a whole? The whole of eve?
Just for your information, I, the op< haven't made a personal attack on a csm member, and only got annoyed after 10 posts of " don't know wtf you are talking about" and "This sucks" without any further explanation, and complete absence of any constructive criticism. I have demonstrated that i am open to criticism, but instead i get some bul****.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.11 09:03:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

You, on the other hand, fail to give me any examples of anything of importance that has been excluded by by narrow view and not taken into account. Be specific if you want your opinion to be considered. What is the system as a whole? The whole of eve?



Actually he is right, there is a lot more that matters here besides the fitting requirements but for some reason you do not want to take it into account.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2010.07.11 09:16:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

You, on the other hand, fail to give me any examples of anything of importance that has been excluded by by narrow view and not taken into account. Be specific if you want your opinion to be considered. What is the system as a whole? The whole of eve?



Actually he is right, there is a lot more that matters here besides the fitting requirements but for some reason you do not want to take it into account.


But you won't tell us what these are?

Thanks for taking this forum seriously. Rolling Eyes

Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.11 11:18:00 - [53]
 

The problem with the remote shield transfer gangs (excluding logistics) is not the module, it's the ships. Most BS gangs use sniper ships which are mostly armor tanked (the only exception being the rokh which basically MUST be shield tanked). If anything at all, something should be made to make shield tanking more widespread in the BS bracket, because it sure is no problem in the Bc/cruiser bracket (nano gangs and drake gangs are both shield tanked...)

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.11 15:19:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

You, on the other hand, fail to give me any examples of anything of importance that has been excluded by by narrow view and not taken into account. Be specific if you want your opinion to be considered. What is the system as a whole? The whole of eve?



Actually he is right, there is a lot more that matters here besides the fitting requirements but for some reason you do not want to take it into account.


But you won't tell us what these are?

Thanks for taking this forum seriously. Rolling Eyes


You might want to train your reading skills, I have already elaborated on this earlier.

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.07.11 15:45:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: megawinsausesniperproxxx

Sok, if i were you i would turn in that fancy CSM title. Whether you realize it or not, you represent thousands of people who play a complicated game. your job is not to troll, or offer input without careful consideration. you are supposed to be a voice of reason and measured debate.

nyouve pretty well disgraced the title, man Confused
Can someone please explain this attitude to me? Sok was posting before he was CSM and he'll probably continue to post afterwards as well. In addition where does the idea that CSM members can't have or express opinions and thoughts of their own come from? It's patently ridiculous. Especially considering that they ran on platforms constructed from their thoughts and ideas. Quite frankly I wish more CSM would be involved visibly with the assembly hall considering how central it should be to the council.

Anyways as someone who voted for Sok I am quite pleased with his representation so far. Would vote again.

Takashi Halamoto
Mercurialis Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.11 20:57:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Takashi Halamoto on 11/07/2010 20:57:43
oh god im agreeing with -a- now what has the world come to

your numbers are interesting BUT

you say shield logistic ships are fine (and are of course using the modules in question)
but shield rrbs gangs are not,

if the module itself is truly the issue surely it would affect logistics ships and we would not see them?

if you do not see a specific group of modules being used in a certain situation (ie RRshield BS) then perhaps either the modules are not meant for that (but they are) or the ships onto which they are meant to go arnt fit right?

beyond the fact that shields regenerate naturally, etc etc etc, SHIELD LOGIS WORK, therefore perchance the problem is in the ships (shield bs) beinga little light in the mid slot department and cpu,

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.07.11 22:30:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Takashi Halamoto

oh god im agreeing with -a- now what has the world come to

your numbers are interesting BUT

you say shield logistic ships are fine (and are of course using the modules in question)
but shield rrbs gangs are not,

if the module itself is truly the issue surely it would affect logistics ships and we would not see them?

if you do not see a specific group of modules being used in a certain situation (ie RRshield BS) then perhaps either the modules are not meant for that (but they are) or the ships onto which they are meant to go arnt fit right?

beyond the fact that shields regenerate naturally, etc etc etc, SHIELD LOGIS WORK, therefore perchance the problem is in the ships (shield bs) beinga little light in the mid slot department and cpu,


See, it's not that difficult ;)


Originally by: Jin Nib

Anyways as someone who voted for Sok I am quite pleased with his representation so far. Would vote again.


Thank you.

Seamus Donohue
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.12 06:47:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Seamus Donohue on 12/07/2010 06:47:39
Disclaimer: I don't know the in-game history or forum history of anyone participating in this thread and I am explicitly refraining from praising or criticizing players.

It seems that the key point from the detractors that's being missed in this discussion is the following: It's undesirable to make one thing overpowered as a side-effect of making something else properly balanced. Those who are basing their arguments on this point are claiming the following: right now, shield logistics ships are properly balanced but shield-based spider-tanking battleship gangs are underpowered. If the shield transfer modules are buffed without any other changes, then shield logistics ships would become overpowered while shield-based spider-tanking battleship gangs would become properly balanced, which is a situation to be avoided. However, if CCPs buff the shield-based battleships, themselves, rather than buff the shield transporter modules, then we will have a situation where both the shield logistics and the shield-based spider-tanking battleships are properly balanced, and this is a much more desirable situation than having either being underpowered or overpowered.

The above is the argument I think the detractors of the original poster are trying to make. For the above to make sense, you must hold the following premises to be true:
1) Shield logistics ships are properly balanced, at present.
2) If the shield logistics ships are buffed in any way, whether by buffs to the ships themselves or by buffs to the modules they use, then shield logistics ships will become overpowered.
3) Shield-based spider-tanking battleship gangs are underpowered, at present.
4) Buffing the shield transporter modules will buff both the shield logistics ships and the shield-based spider-tanking battleship gangs.
5) Buffing the shield-based battleships, themselves, will buff their spider-tanking gangs but will not buff the shield logistics ships.

I don't know if such arguments are right or wrong. I don't know if those premises are true or false. Maybe the best approach is to just buff the shield transfer modules, as the original poster suggests. Maybe the best approach is to buff the shield-based battleships, as the detractors suggest. Maybe the best approach is a combined tweaking of the modules, logistics ships, and battleships. I don't know enough of the issues, myself, to advocate one approach over another. I post only for the sake of clear and constructive discussion.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2010.07.12 07:11:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 12/07/2010 07:16:22
The proposed buff would not in any way affect shield logistics ships, try again.


If for some reason you really would want to 'fix' the not in any way boosted logistics ships you could nerf their cpu with the same amount that would be freed by the lower cpu cost of shield transporters.
Right now on a scimi i can fit if i want 4 large shield transporters + XL shield booster if for some weird reason i want that. Now what happens if you lower cpu cost of shield transporters? Nothing obviously, it can still fit everything but now with some spare CPU. But since it didnt lack CPU in the first place it wouldnt be boosted in any way.

Buffing shield based battleships is a terrible idea. Then we just get a bunch of overpowered battleships running around. The problem are shield transporters, not shield based battleships. (Not to mention all the traditionally armor tanked BS would then be fail in shield based gangs).

SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2010.07.12 07:31:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: SupaKudoRio on 12/07/2010 07:40:51
Originally by: Furb Killer
How is all this relevant that shield transporters take ridiculous amount of CPU?


LRAR
Pros: 10% more cap efficient
Cons: delivers reps at the end of the cycle

LST
Pros: reps at the start of the cycle
Cons: has an insane CPU cost that makes fitting them impossible without gimped fittings with the exclusion of dedicated logistics ships, shield tanks also use mid slots which prevents usage of ewar/sebos/ECCM

...
Wut?

Decrease LST CPU, bump up cap use slightly.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only