|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5594
   |
Posted - 2015.03.27 23:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
So the tl;dr version is basically....
make armor rep more per cycle, but have longer cycles, so the armor is more susceptible to burst damage. HP Regenerated per minute remains the same.
This is basically how active armor reps worked in the past (Five 3 second cycles, repped at the end of each cycle) as well as how it works in EVE, where armor repairers have much longer cycle with a large HP bonus per cycle than a shield booster which traditionally has a short cycle.
Totally on board with this, though I have concerns about how difficult it will be to alter cycle lengths, but that's more of a TechEval than anything.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5595
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:09:00 -
[2] - Quote
Well it helps to explain the principle to people who may not understand the concept behind the summary, so a lengthy explanation is. good as well. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding you properly haha.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5595
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:26:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:We could just make reps active again.
Although this could work as well.
I agree. Active reps would be far superior, but Tenbu's idea here is certainly a lower hanging fruit and would help to address some of the current meta without stupid hard limits on module use.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5595
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 01:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Pokey Dravon wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:We could just make reps active again.
Although this could work as well. I agree. Active reps would be far superior, but Tenbu's idea here is certainly a lower hanging fruit and would help to address some of the current meta without stupid hard limits on module use. I don't want to do away with passive reps myself. I think they should be here just as active reps should. In the future though, active reps would provide the burst healing against burst DPS, and we could increase the passive reps cycles even higher. Reps at 10s passive or burst reps at 3s per tick but with activation time and cooldown. In any case, active reps aren't here so workin with what we got!
I've always seen passive reps as a Cap-Stable Repairer, so while it reps constantly, it's also at a much lower rate. Active reps are a Non-Cap Stable repairer that needs to be cycled so it can recharge.
So I agree that passive reps should stay but not nearly as the effectiveness they currently are.
But yeah if we can get the armor repairers to be a bit more reasonable when stacked, but not non viable when there is only one, I'll be a happy camper.
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
5597
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 23:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tebu, in response to the message you sent me in-game:
Effective rep rate (or damage mitigation rate) is pretty simple to calculate
Let's say you're repping at 100 HP/s
If you resists 50% of incoming damage, the damage dealer must do 200 DPS in order to match the 100HP/s regen. This is trivial.
So 100 / (1-0.5) = 200DPS
if you're resisting 40% of the damage
100 / (1-0.4) = 167DPS
If you're resisting 60% of the damage
100 / (1-0.6) = 250 DPS
You can check to see if this correct. Since at 60% reduction, enemy damage is only doing 40% of its listed damage:
250 * 0.4 = 100
-or-
167 * 0.6 = 100
Hope this helps!
"That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032
Dust514 // Podcast
www.biomassed.net
|
|
|
| |
|