These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Passive vs. Active tanking.... your thoughts?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fronkfurter McSheebleton
Horse Feathers
CAStabouts
#21 - 2012-05-14 01:21:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Fronkfurter McSheebleton
I'm a supporter of making incoming RR affected by an active tanking bonus. Resist bonuses help almost as much as active bonuses when active tanking...the difference per repper in something like 3% between an abaddon and a hyperion. With current mechanics, active bonuses are flat out worse than resist bonuses. Change it to affect incoming RR as well, and you get the same balance.Bigger buffer/better alpha resistance on the resist bonused ship, and slightly higher sustained incoming damage on the rep bonused ship. Would balance the hyperion out nicely in fleet fights, and perhaps make maelstroms useful for something besides alpha. Cyclone and Brutix hulls would be happy as well.

It would also be a handy buff to marauders, without breaking them.





Under current mechanics, active is good in solo/small gang...end of. (although, when done right, it really works)

thhief ghabmoef
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#22 - 2012-05-14 01:48:26 UTC
Misanthra wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I don't think this is a bad change, but I also don't think it will do enough to make active tanking a more viable option over buffer tanking. I think making both shield and armor buffer tank modules (armor plates and shield extenders) decrease speed is a more viable option.



CCP proposed that idea and it died. It has 2 issues. One is it makes all tanks the same. Its nice to have some variety in the drawbacks of the tank styles. For say a lok pilot, it adds complexity to flying it as on armour roams his loki is a completely different ship from when run on shield roams Second issues is it doesn't really solve much.

System as now (with thronw out numbers since cba to eft actual ones.)

Plated armour vanilla buffer/passive fit top speed is 800 m/s. Already has his plate speed reduction
Shield tanked vanilla MSE/LSE, CDFE or resist rigs top speed 950 m/s


System where shield rigs dont do sig drawback but do speed reduction:

Plate armour takes a speed hit, probably more so since the same.
Shield tanker is going slower....but still faster than the armour plate boat, and keeps agility.

Your system (and one ccp was thinking about) , end resutl is the shield tanker kiter is still kiting. jsut at reduced speed. Bunch of code rewrites, in house balance tesitng, final testing on sisi and end of the day......that jaguar and that shield cane is still kitng.




Fair enough. I'm not wedded to a particular way to change the balance between active and buffer tanking - I just think shield buffer tanking needs a bit more of a draw back than it currently has.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-05-14 05:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Mfume Apocal
FT Diomedes wrote:
I just think shield buffer tanking needs a bit more of a draw back than it currently has.


It has a fairly significant drawback for medscale and larger gangs, especially once you're dealing with dreads and tracking titans. Admittedly, this bias isn't felt harshly at the solo/small gang level, but armor tanking's drawback is similarly diminished as scale increases.
Maeltstome
Ten Thousand Days
#24 - 2012-05-14 15:37:52 UTC
EHP setups are preferred because of huge DPS numbers. The EHP of an active tanking ship increases the long it is fighting and tanking damage. The more dps you are receiving, the less time you're repping, the lower your EHP gained from reps.

Long story short you can alpha strike active setups with only a few ships - whereas a buffer setup will survive a few extra volley's, which is enough normally to get out of range and cut effective DPS to nothing, or for remote reps to land on them.

The best way to buff active tanking is to substantially buff the base HP of all ships without touching the HP gained from buffer modules. Perhaps lowering rig/implant bonuses to make sure they dont take advantage of this would bea good idea also.

here's an example:

Brutix, twin rep, all resists at 55% on armor, 2x rep amount rig, 1x rep cycle rig (lowest resist).
37k basic EHP
2 reps bc5 = 140 HP/s * 1.55 = 217 EHP/s
No free low slots

Brutis, no rep, all resists 55% on armor, 3x trimark (lowest resist)
65.4k Basic EHP
1 free low slot

So it takes (65400 - 37000) / 217 = 130 seconds for the active tank to actually prove better than a passive. Take into account how much cap this is using compared to a passive tank, the fact that both of them move at the same speed and that the passive tank still has a free low slot and still only uses 120 more PG... you really need to think that repping just doesn't cut it these days.

And all this is on a lvl5 battlecruiser with a bonus to active tanking. on other ships it's much worse.
Kalli Brixzat
#25 - 2012-05-14 17:24:17 UTC
Maeltstome wrote:
EHP setups are preferred because of huge DPS numbers. The EHP of an active tanking ship increases the long it is fighting and tanking damage. The more dps you are receiving, the less time you're repping, the lower your EHP gained from reps.

Long story short you can alpha strike active setups with only a few ships - whereas a buffer setup will survive a few extra volley's, which is enough normally to get out of range and cut effective DPS to nothing, or for remote reps to land on them.

The best way to buff active tanking is to substantially buff the base HP of all ships without touching the HP gained from buffer modules. Perhaps lowering rig/implant bonuses to make sure they dont take advantage of this would bea good idea also.

here's an example:

Brutix, twin rep, all resists at 55% on armor, 2x rep amount rig, 1x rep cycle rig (lowest resist).
37k basic EHP
2 reps bc5 = 140 HP/s * 1.55 = 217 EHP/s
No free low slots

Brutis, no rep, all resists 55% on armor, 3x trimark (lowest resist)
65.4k Basic EHP
1 free low slot

So it takes (65400 - 37000) / 217 = 130 seconds for the active tank to actually prove better than a passive. Take into account how much cap this is using compared to a passive tank, the fact that both of them move at the same speed and that the passive tank still has a free low slot and still only uses 120 more PG... you really need to think that repping just doesn't cut it these days.

And all this is on a lvl5 battlecruiser with a bonus to active tanking. on other ships it's much worse.


Trolling, right?
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#26 - 2012-05-14 18:55:00 UTC
Kalli Brixzat wrote:
Maeltstome wrote:


The best way to buff active tanking is to substantially buff the base HP of all ships without touching the HP gained from buffer modules.


Trolling, right?

Why even ask? What?

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Cunanium
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-05-15 04:06:27 UTC
Active tanking will always be subservient to passive tanking for two simple reasons, alpha and logistics.

Take an ideal fight for example, your tanked dps boats are within their optimal of the opposing fleet, and your logistics are (hopefully) "behind" your tanked dps boats providing support, out of range of the enemies tanked dps boats. Logistics obviously specialize in repping, and provide a second cap reserve for tanking. This allows the DPS boats to utilize their cap on weapons and utility mods, which we all know can be highly cap sensitive. In addition, passive tanking with high EHP preferably through high resists allows said dps boat a higher threshold before logistics attempting to save the dps boat are ineffective, the Alpha factor.

Simply put, passive tanked boats benefit from a synergy with logistic fleet compositions that is prominent through the small-mid gang size. Getting into the large gang and, depending on fleet comps, boats may begin to be alpha'ed regardless of their tank.

Thus, outside of small, localized fights, local repping will never become prominent. It will continue to exist on small ships such as frigates where the passive tanking penalty is significant to their overall tank (plates removing agility, shields adding sig radius), and their alpha threshold even with a buff tank is low enough to render the difference between active and passive negligible.

In addition, changes that "buff" active tanking in regards to capacitor will inevitably nerf nos/nuets, since the buff to cap will effect all modules not just active reppers, possibly to the extent that nos/neuting can become irrelevant.

The best idea for active tanking is to make it more situational. It may be possible to make specific hulls which benefit more from active tanking, thus making them more popular in smaller gang warfare, possibly adding a penalty to passive tanking and increasing base HP.

However, in the world of min/maxing, you will have either one, and with logistics, it makes no sense to have localized repping as effective as buffer tanking, a specialized fleet composition, since it would defy the idea of synergy in fleet comps.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#28 - 2012-05-15 14:50:10 UTC
I think what is mostly needed is a rebalance of fittings. Passive tanks is so much easier to fit that its a joke.

Compare local active tank fitting cost with remote one. Then you see why remote is so much smarter than local rep even for battleships with no logistics.


In general I think fitting of armor repairers need to be ALMOST HALVED on PG and shield ones must decrease like 25% on both CPU and PG.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#29 - 2012-05-16 00:49:03 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:

In general I think fitting of armor repairers need to be ALMOST HALVED on PG and shield ones must decrease like 25% on both CPU and PG.

Once again: it's better to increase those for passive tank mods instead.

There's no point in having game concepts of CPU and PG if they don't limit you in a slightest. Having to make choices and compromises - speaking of fitting, that's exactly what makes this game interesting.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
#30 - 2012-05-16 11:39:40 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Seishi Maru wrote:

In general I think fitting of armor repairers need to be ALMOST HALVED on PG and shield ones must decrease like 25% on both CPU and PG.

Once again: it's better to increase those for passive tank mods instead.

There's no point in having game concepts of CPU and PG if they don't limit you in a slightest. Having to make choices and compromises - speaking of fitting, that's exactly what makes this game interesting.



In fact I think both must be moved. PAssive moduels increased a bit and active one decreased. Active rep must be decreased. Simply compare remote repairer and local repairer to see that there is a problem there. Loal repairers shoudl not cost so much more than remotes.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#31 - 2012-05-16 15:52:57 UTC
Seishi Maru wrote:
In fact I think both must be moved. PAssive moduels increased a bit and active one decreased. Active rep must be decreased. Simply compare remote repairer and local repairer to see that there is a problem there. Loal repairers shoudl not cost so much more than remotes.
+1.
Previous page12