These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Problem with Armor Repairers vs buffer tank
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
MJ Incognito
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-08-21 17:01:39 UTC
The primary issue with active tanking armor comes down to a very simple hp loss over time. Capacitor is hardly ever the issue for experienced pilots to deal with, but here's the flaw:

If I have two choices:

1 being a 190,000 EHP abaddon with buffer tank
2 being a 90,000 EHP abaddon with local repper tank

I'm always going to choose the buffer. And the truth is no different for other races. The flaw is that Active tanking requires at minimum, 2 slots (1 med, 1 low) or more ideally, 3 slots (1 medium, 2 low) just to accomodate the repairers. These 2 slots fill up other options of more buffer or more resistance, both of which have a variety of impacts outside of local repairing.

With such a considerable drop off in EHP, I'm losing the most valuable asset I have, which is time. I simply do not have enough time to repair back the damage that buffer loss cost me because the enemy takes quite a bit less time to kill me.

Unlike shield, armor hits at the end of a very long cycle. So by default, I have an 11 second tank sink to deal with before my tank ever kicks in. Buffer fit has no such sink.
========================


How I would fix this problem:

option 1:

Add a 10% penalized resistance bonus for every armor repairer

or

option 2:

Add a 18% hull and armor bonus per repairer specific to the ship class that repairer is meant for. (IE large for bs, small for frigate and destroyer)

Either of these options provides a middle ground buffer so that the disparity between a true buffer tank and the active tanking system aren't so ridiculously high. It also allows for better rig choices for active tankers.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-08-21 19:19:48 UTC
how about option 3, Armor reps add some EHP, not as much as a 1600 plate mind you but maybe as much as an 800 for large reps, 400 for medium. ect.

this means you get rep power, a bit more EHP and most importantly, a you don't lose the agility so for smaller ships it will be a pretty big buff
NiGhTTraX
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-08-21 20:42:21 UTC
Option 4: realize that the two should not be equivalent. You either get a large buffer to withstand alpha, or repping power to support long engagements. Two completely different play styles.

If you're gonna post here thinking your idea is the greatest thing since bacon and that it will save EVE and possibly all humankind with it, you're gonna have a bad time.
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Doomheim
#4 - 2012-08-21 22:20:41 UTC
If you expect to have friendly logistics use buffer.

If you expect to only be on the field long enough to run through a buffer tank, use buffer.

Otherwise use local if you need to stay in combat for a very long time.
PinkKnife
The Cuddlefish
Ethereal Dawn
#5 - 2012-08-21 22:28:32 UTC
How about we fix it so that Armor reps only need 1 module like shield reps do. That might be you know, logical.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2012-08-21 22:39:32 UTC
PinkKnife wrote:
How about we fix it so that Armor reps only need 1 module like shield reps do. That might be you know, logical.

Like increasing rep amount and decreasing cap use? Why do we want to give armor ships a break, then armor and shield fleets might be balanced, I dare not say equal because people will rage "the game is not equal or fair".

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#7 - 2012-08-22 00:46:55 UTC
Armor buffer tanking has a huge drawback that a player cannot rep themselves. When solo, this is critical; in a gang, it forces a sacrifice of offensive modules/drones. The environment you are in plays a big part in your choice (enemy territory, station-less space, WH w/o POS). That huge disadvantage is countered by less/no cap use and massive EHP.

That said, CCP Fozzie has recently stated his concern over tanking in general.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#8 - 2012-08-22 02:16:06 UTC
You're on the spot here, fixing active tanking by adding additional suplemental bonuses to local armor repairers and boosters is really the way to go.

These bonuses could include anything from extra mobility to sensor strength, the reasoning in either case is the fact how slot-intensive active tanking is.

Increasing just repairing values alone is a huge no-no, it provokes more problems than it solves.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#9 - 2012-08-22 02:24:44 UTC
how about make local reps have the ability to chuck in nano paste which would make them alot more strong... increases thier effectiveness by like 30%...

think of it as the armors response to asb... but instead of cap boosters it uses nano paste...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Dennis Gregs
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-08-22 02:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Dennis Gregs
To be honest, the only solution I can see is lowering the cap cost of armor repairers. If I use 2 armor repairers then I automatically have to use almost all middle slots PLUS all rigs only to be able to be cap stable. This is a bit ridiculous, but I will admit this challenge of armor tanking really adds to the fun of the game, fine tuning your ship so it's cap stable while having decent damage.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2012-08-22 04:00:26 UTC
Dennis Gregs wrote:
To be honest, the only solution I can see is lowering the cap cost of armor repairers. If I use 2 armor repairers then I automatically have to use almost all middle slots PLUS all rigs only to be able to be cap stable. This is a bit ridiculous, but I will admit this challenge of armor tanking really adds to the fun of the game, fine tuning your ship so it's cap stable while having decent damage.

cap stablilty is hardly the biggest issue in pvp, which is the only place you should ever armor buffer (short of incursions which if you don't have logistics enjoy death)
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#12 - 2012-08-22 04:22:42 UTC
General active armor tanking fixes:

- shorten cycle time
- decrease cap use
- decrease fitting requirements (by a lot)
- change or remove repair rig penalties
- introduce XL armor repper

plus:

- give all active armor rep-bonused hulls their missing low slots
- extend said hull ep bonus to received reps
- fix the damn ASBs so that you need 800s for large, and two 800s per XLASB cycle

Currently active tanking is far behing shield boosting, even on an armor rep-bonused hull.

.
LiBraga
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-08-23 11:16:00 UTC
MMMKkkk this must be a troll thread.

All tanking styles have their weaknesses and strengths.

You can't just compare the module stats, you have to consider all the variables.

Like the 2 Large Armour Reps vs 1 XLarge Shield Booster.... armour ships by nature have better resists compared to shield ships. It's easier to setup resistances requiring less slots as compared to a shield ship.

Also most shield setups aren't cap stable... cap stable tanking is in essence used for tanking lower dps but continuously. Tanking larger dps in active setups involves pulsing your reps. The same goes for armour setups. In pve armour tanking I would have 1 rep continuously running and pulse the second rep.

Being able to fly almost everything with T2 fits and been playing since 2004 I think my opinion is both jusified and fair.

Everything has its role and everything has its requirements. If you're not able to do something one way it's not because it's unbalanced (normally anyway) it's because you're using the wrong tools for the task.

There is not a one style fits all solution

If it moves.... You obviously didn't kill it the first time.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#14 - 2012-08-23 15:01:48 UTC
The core flaw in your logic is assuming that buffer tanking is strictly better than using reppers.

In truth, buffer tanking is only better than reppers in three specific situations: You have logi on the field, withstanding alpha, or if the incoming DPS is significantly higher than a repper can tank. These situations are normally found in large fleet fights, but large fleets aren't the only PvP in Eve.

In all other situations, repper tanks are actually far superior to buffer tanks. Lets say, for example, we're dealing with a ship that can have 100k EHP and 500 DPS sustained tank or a ship that can have 200k EHP and 0 sustained tank.

If there is only 450 DPS incoming, the active tanked ship will last forever, but the buffer tanked ship will only last for 7.4 minutes. If there's 550 DPS incoming the buffer tank will last for 6 minutes but the active tank will last for 33.3 minutes (100k EHP at 550-500=50 DPS). In fact, the break-even point for that pair of setups is at 1k DPS, at which point both fits will last for 3.3 minutes.

More generally, buffer is better if Incoming DPS > (possible DPS tank * possible buffer EHP)/(difference between EHP of buffer and active tanks). In this situation, 1k = (500 * 200,000) / (200,000-100,000) means that anything with greater than 1k incoming DPS will be better with buffer and anything less will be better with active.

As the difference between the buffer and active EHP reduce, and as the DPS tank increases, the active tank has more and more of an edge. This holds true for both shield and armor tanks.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-08-24 05:08:25 UTC
mxzf brings up some good points, but the problem is in pvp chances are you are being neuted and your repper won't last forever.
the reason ASB tanks are used more now in pvp is they can be directly fed with cap boosters and they repair a lot of shield, meaning they save a slot that normally would be a cap injector.

Armor tanks would be fixed IMO if they gave + armor HP on different sized reppers. ( maybe not for cap ships)

so like 1,000 for a t1 large repper, 1500 for a t2 large repper - this puts t2 rep at the meta 0 800mm plate HP boost
750 for a t1 medium rep and 850 for a t2 medium rep (t2 rep will = meta 0 400mm plate
75 for small t1 rep and 150 for t2 small rep ( about the same as a t2 50mm plate)

of course my numbers need balancing.
MJ Incognito
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-08-24 16:00:48 UTC
Passive tank is better in 95% of all PvP situations in eve. It provides a longer base survivability chance, extra mid slots, and is capless. The third part of that reasoning is the most important, especially in small scale fights. Unless you are dual cap injector fit, It's almost certain you'll be riding on low or no cap in almost all small scale fights. This means you are repairing at an unoptimal rate thus stretching out the window where the buffer system is better.

On the two most common races of armor tanked ships, using up that capacitor for tank also runs you the risk of turning off your weapons.... which virtually makes you a sitting duck.

Providing more EHP, but nowhere near enough to compensate for plating gives you more time in a fight Irregardless of factors that normally destroy active tanking and force most pilots to passive tank by default.