These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

How to fix armor tanking

Author
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#21 - 2012-08-29 19:58:36 UTC

A couple of things to add:

1.) Gallente armor blasterboats are NOT obsolete.... they require learning how & when to engage much more-so than the kiting, run-away shield ships... which is one of the major reasons they aren't see as much.

2.) Armor tanks have significant disadvantages over shield tanks.... but, until the introduction of the ASB, used to provide much more consistent and solid tanking... They had other advantages as well... like free mids for ewar, cap boosters, etc...

3.) The ASB is both a wonderful thing and a terrible thing.... It has a great drawback and high enough fitting requirements to really force oversized ASB fit ships to sacrifice tank, gank, or EWAR..... The downside, sometimes you can fit multiple ASB's per ship, at which point they become ridiculous.... They are also seriously altering the solo pvp environment...

4.) Armor tanks could use a boon to compete with ASB fit ships.... nothing like the asb though.... I actually think the non-stacking-penalized Reactive hardeners could be a great middle ground.... but they need some tweaking to become valuable (yet there is the danger of them becoming tooo valuable).

Sigras
Conglomo
#22 - 2012-08-29 22:04:52 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Armor tanking has been less viable in small gang/solo work way before the ASB's
And decreasing Agility does NOT fix the problem..
Align time is life.
Been playing EVE for a long time. Shield tanking was scoffed at for most of it. Ravens used to be good before the missile changes. The Drake has been the exception (it will be getting changed).

This is not a relevant factor as we are focusing on fixing the problems currently in game not talking about what was historically considered good.

Obsidiana wrote:
If you use shields, you can’t fit a proper tackle. If you fit a proper tackle, you can’t shield tank.
A lot of these ships are really speed tanking.

I disagree vehemently with the first statement, fitting a prop mod and tackle is 2 slots, and one of them gets recouped because the DCU affects shields and isnt a mid slot. so shield tankers have to sacrifice 1 mid slot to fit tackle and in trade to that, they get basically all the damage mods / tracking enhancers / overdrive injectors / nanofibers they want.

In order to keep on damage par with a shield tanking ship, armor ships have to sacrifice 2-3 low slots for damage mods

The second statement is actually the point of my other post. Shield (buffer) tanking isnt really shield tanking its dual tanking, because on top of having a lot of shield EHP, you also get a lot of speed.
it would be fair if you had to choose between shield tanking, or speed tanking, but with shields, you get both

Obsidiana wrote:
I like how CCP Fozzie put it:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Drakes and Tengus are a balance problem at the moment, believe me when I say we understand that.

But if anything I feel we need to rely less on eve-wide module and ship stats like those available on eve-kill or in our more accurate internal tools. We can track every single module activation in eve but there's a big difference between having those numbers and understanding them. Context matters much more and if you were to rely too much on those numbers you might for instance think that the Talos needs a huge buff (which is obviously not true when you step back from the numbers).


Btw, thanks for all the replies. Good points all. Hope my counter points were at least interesting.


Oh i completely agree with him, numbers arent everything and you do have to correctly understand them to apply them, but can you offer another explanation as to why the most common fits for the hyperion, brutix, hurricane, talos, and oracle are shield tanks? Ive even suggested and flown a shield tanked dominix because I had dedicated tackle and wanted to do more damage.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#23 - 2012-08-29 22:13:01 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Oh i completely agree with him, numbers arent everything and you do have to correctly understand them to apply them, but can you offer another explanation as to why the most common fits for the hyperion, brutix, hurricane, talos, and oracle are shield tanks? Ive even suggested and flown a shield tanked dominix because I had dedicated tackle and wanted to do more damage.


For the same reason that scorpions and other ECM ships are often armor tanked, in spite of being Caldari ships.

What happens when Battle clinic sees a 100 vs 100 fight, with one side having 100 drakes, and the other side having a mix of things? Let's pretend the second fleet is AFK, so we get 100 drakes killing 100 ships. Do you think that BC will list 100 kills to drakes? Or are they likely to list 100 kills for EACH drake?

Drakes killed 100 things = +100 to kills by Drakes.
EACH Drake killed 100 things = 100x100=10,000 kills to Drakes.

I know which one it SHOULD be, but I'm pretty sure I know which one it is as well.
A Soporific
Perkone
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-08-30 02:48:04 UTC
I have to say, I want the balance to armor tanks to make it more active than it already is.

I would love to see armor modules that do something else when off, and tank when on (for a drawback). Mostly because I want to see situational conditions where turning off your tank is the right move.

Maybe turning something off breaks a jam cycle when cancelled. Maybe something that boosts E-War when off and nerfs it when on. Maybe something that boosts agility of the ship when off, but nerfs it when it provides resist bonuses. I would love to see a tank that can reward you for choosing not to use it.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-08-31 05:21:55 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
Been playing EVE for a long time. Shield tanking was scoffed at for most of it. Ravens used to be good before the missile changes. The Drake has been the exception (it will be getting changed).

This is not a relevant factor as we are focusing on fixing the problems currently in game not talking about what was historically considered good.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

My point that this "armor tanking is broken" only started recently. They weren't nerfed; shield ship speed has not been buffed. While armor tanking might need tweaking, only ASB has really changed. Active shield tanking needed the buff. Shield buffer tanking, which is different from shield passive tanking, is for ships that really expect to gank or be ganked. You can expect to die without logistics, EWar, or way moar DPS than the other guy.

Sigras wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
If you use shields, you can’t fit a proper tackle. If you fit a proper tackle, you can’t shield tank.
A lot of these ships are really speed tanking.

I disagree vehemently with the first statement, fitting a prop mod and tackle is 2 slots, and one of them gets recouped because the DCU affects shields and isnt a mid slot. so shield tankers have to sacrifice 1 mid slot to fit tackle and in trade to that, they get basically all the damage mods / tracking enhancers / overdrive injectors / nanofibers they want.

In order to keep on damage par with a shield tanking ship, armor ships have to sacrifice 2-3 low slots for damage mods

The second statement is actually the point of my other post. Shield (buffer) tanking isnt really shield tanking its dual tanking, because on top of having a lot of shield EHP, you also get a lot of speed.
it would be fair if you had to choose between shield tanking, or speed tanking, but with shields, you get both
Tackle: web, AB/MWD, scram (2 pt ftw).

AB/MWD costs one slot, half tackle another. No X-large shield extender (2 slots = 1600 plate). You only get at most six slots (T1 BS or lower). DCU does less for shields. Sig bloom compounds with MWD penalty, increasing damage taken. Omni hardeners needs plenty of cap too. Yes, you have speed, but low EHP, sig bloom, and less cap. Add rigs, and the bloom is huge.

With armor tanking, it takes less modules, uses less cap, and gets more EHP. You can speed, buffer, and sig tank with armor and have a full tackle. A mid slot can get more damage through instant swapping tracking/range boost that doubles as anti-EWar. Oh, ya... cap boosters and batteries for anti-nos/nuet. Yes, it will be slower than shield tanking, but that tracking script sure compliments armor tanking. Could the speed penalty be reduced or changed? Sure. But.

Armor needs to be balanced with shield tanking which has plenty of drawbacks.


Sigras wrote:
Oh i completely agree with him, numbers arent everything and you do have to correctly understand them to apply them, but can you offer another explanation as to why the most common fits for the hyperion, brutix, hurricane, talos, and oracle are shield tanks? Ive even suggested and flown a shield tanked dominix because I had dedicated tackle and wanted to do more damage.
Battle Clinic does not match up with your anecdotal knowledge.

I looked each of those ships up on Battle Clinic just now. The Hyperion was almost always armor tanked and always much higher rated. The same with the Oracle. Now, the Talos was interesting: it was a fairly even split, but shield tanks sacrificed tackle. The Brutix, oh man... it was a split between armor, shield, and no tank. It is a tier 1 BC, which lack slots, so TBE. The hurricane was a slit too, and it should be able to do either, it's Minmatar. The highest rated ship was a L3 mission runner and the second, a true passive shield tank, has only one damage mod. The shield buffer tanks had no tackle gear at all except for the lowest rank one on the first page. The rest had the 3 slot tackle and cap booster or sensor booster.

I checked Battle Clinic using all time load outs. If you wan to check with more current load outs and compare notes, that would be interesting. If you have another source, including your corp/alliance recommended load outs, please share. You have valid points, and a strong argument for the 2 slot tackle, but I hope my counter points were compelling. We may have to agree to disagree on that point. Btw, the dual tanking shield-buffer/speed tank argument, if you noticed, I could not directly rebuttal. Touché. 8)

To answer your question as to why some of those ships shield buffer tanked, it is as I said above:

Shield buffer tanking ... is for ships that really expect to gank or be ganked.
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#26 - 2012-08-31 05:43:36 UTC
Problem is that drawbacks of armor tank are universally bad (lower speed and agility) while penalty for shield tanks isnt (sig bloom which decreases lock time on you and makes you easier to hit), because its compensated by nano. ASB just aggravated the issue.

Adressing the drawbacks to be more on par with each other is the key IMO to acceptable solution. Also, nano and kiting setups in general need to be balanced so they cant perma kite, because if you can choose to perma kite and be most of the time able to disengage, you'll always chose that instead to commit to a fight in hard tackle range.
Sigras
Conglomo
#27 - 2012-08-31 06:12:31 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

My point that this "armor tanking is broken" only started recently. They weren't nerfed; shield ship speed has not been buffed. While armor tanking might need tweaking, only ASB has really changed. Active shield tanking needed the buff. Shield buffer tanking, which is different from shield passive tanking, is for ships that really expect to gank or be ganked. You can expect to die without logistics, EWar, or way moar DPS than the other guy.


In small gangs, armor tanking has been just a bit better than useless since webifiers and MWDs were nerfed back in 2007/2008 with the exception of fringe cases like AHACs. Now with battleships and in larger engagements, where speed doesnt matter all that much because the fleet as a whole is slow, i agree, armor is on par with, if not superior to shields, especially with the proliferation of the armor cap ships which can effectively support the armor battleships.

That being said, this is nothing new. Shield fits have been the standard for small to medium gang engagements ever since the 90% web went away and took the gallente superiority with it; now im not saying that we need to return to those times because back then gallente was worse than minmatar are now, but balance does need to be restored.

Obsidiana wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Obsidiana wrote:
If you use shields, you can’t fit a proper tackle. If you fit a proper tackle, you can’t shield tank.
A lot of these ships are really speed tanking.

I disagree vehemently with the first statement, fitting a prop mod and tackle is 2 slots, and one of them gets recouped because the DCU affects shields and isnt a mid slot. so shield tankers have to sacrifice 1 mid slot to fit tackle and in trade to that, they get basically all the damage mods / tracking enhancers / overdrive injectors / nanofibers they want.

In order to keep on damage par with a shield tanking ship, armor ships have to sacrifice 2-3 low slots for damage mods

The second statement is actually the point of my other post. Shield (buffer) tanking isnt really shield tanking its dual tanking, because on top of having a lot of shield EHP, you also get a lot of speed.
it would be fair if you had to choose between shield tanking, or speed tanking, but with shields, you get both
Tackle: web, AB/MWD, scram (2 pt ftw).

AB/MWD costs one slot, half tackle another. No X-large shield extender (2 slots = 1600 plate). You only get at most six slots (T1 BS or lower). DCU does less for shields. Sig bloom compounds with MWD penalty, increasing damage taken. Omni hardeners needs plenty of cap too. Yes, you have speed, but low EHP, sig bloom, and less cap. Add rigs, and the bloom is huge.


While I understand that, it is all countered by the fact that an armor tanking ship can never kill a faster shield tanking ship unless it gets really lucky and lands on top of it. Yes, the DCU does less for shield than it does for armor, but it does affect shields; where is my mid slot module that effects armor?

Most shield ships wouldnt even fit a web if it was a low slot module because they dont ever want to be that close for fear they get scrambled

Yes, the sig bloom is exacerbated by the MWD, but you can never take more than 100% damage, and you can always disengage.

I submit that your EHP and cap dont matter because you always have the option of disengaging in a shield ship.

When a shield pilot engages an armor ship on a gate, he thinks "if this guy has friends, im going to have to leave"

When an armor pilot engages a shield ship on a gate, he thinks "if this guy has friends, im going to die"

That is why speed = the option to disengage = life
Sigras
Conglomo
#28 - 2012-08-31 06:52:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Obsidiana wrote:
With armor tanking, it takes less modules, uses less cap, and gets more EHP

I would agree, however I would say that low slots are more "in demand" than mid slots which is why I would say shield tanking is still superior.

On a typical "roam" fit, you need a MWD (mandatory warp drive), and a warp disruptor in the mids.
On a typical "roam" fit, you usually bring 2+ damage mods, 2 tracking enhancers.

And still shields get an extra tank slot because the DCU works for shields too. (yes i know it is less but 12.5% > 0)

I would submit that armor gets more EHP and less speed, less range, less damage, and less power grid.

Comparing two hurricane fits, one armor tanked, and one shield tanked, the shield one has 43,800 EHP and the armor has 69,600 EHP, so youre right, the armor has 58.9% more EHP, but:

  1. its speed is 1025 vs 1434 (39.9% slower)
  2. Its range is 3 + 18 vs 3.9 + 30 (61.9% worse) this means at 20 km with barrage, the shield ship is doing 420 DPS vs the armor's 286
  3. it only has small neuts instead of mediums because the 1600mm plate takes all the PG.

yes, the armor ship has a web, but it will never get in range to use it, and remember we're using a hurricane which has 4 mids and 6 lows. If this were a 5/5 ship, there would be no contest.

Obsidiana wrote:
You can speed, buffer, and sig tank with armor and have a full tackle.


you cannot speed tank an armor ship. you can sig tank an armor ship which is really great, but only a few ships can do it, and they still get raped if not flown perfectly, whereas kiting is fairly easy.

I really think they should nerf matari speed and buff their agility. This would make gallente ships the fastest in the game, but would also make them less agile, so matari ships could still kite them, they'd just have to do more work than "keep at range" and "orbit"

Obsidiana wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Oh i completely agree with him, numbers arent everything and you do have to correctly understand them to apply them, but can you offer another explanation as to why the most common fits for the hyperion, brutix, hurricane, talos, and oracle are shield tanks? Ive even suggested and flown a shield tanked dominix because I had dedicated tackle and wanted to do more damage.
Battle Clinic does not match up with your anecdotal knowledge.

I looked each of those ships up on Battle Clinic just now. The Hyperion was almost always armor tanked and always much higher rated. The same with the Oracle. Now, the Talos was interesting: it was a fairly even split, but shield tanks sacrificed tackle. The Brutix, oh man... it was a split between armor, shield, and no tank. It is a tier 1 BC, which lack slots, so TBE. The hurricane was a slit too, and it should be able to do either, it's Minmatar. The highest rated ship was a L3 mission runner and the second, a true passive shield tank, has only one damage mod. The shield buffer tanks had no tackle gear at all except for the lowest rank one on the first page. The rest had the 3 slot tackle and cap booster or sensor booster.

I checked Battle Clinic using all time load outs. If you wan to check with more current load outs and compare notes, that would be interesting. If you have another source, including your corp/alliance recommended load outs, please share. You have valid points, and a strong argument for the 2 slot tackle, but I hope my counter points were compelling. We may have to agree to disagree on that point. Btw, the dual tanking shield-buffer/speed tank argument, if you noticed, I could not directly rebuttal. Touché. 8)

To answer your question as to why some of those ships shield buffer tanked, it is as I said above:

Shield buffer tanking ... is for ships that really expect to gank or be ganked.


Its interesting to see the difference between what people think and what people actually fly.

I looked at the "most recent kills" section of battle clinic and just went back a few pages finding all the hurricanes I could. Of those, 26 were shield 4 were armor, and 3 were fail, and even 2 of the fail fits were shield (the other was no tank and had WCS)

I dont mean to sound like a broken record or anything, but this is a ship with 4 mids and 6 lows. This reaffirms my belief that the low slots have better utility mods and are therefore more valuable than mid slots
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#29 - 2012-08-31 07:45:43 UTC
Nestara Aldent wrote:
Problem is that drawbacks of armor tank are universally bad (lower speed and agility) while penalty for shield tanks isnt (sig bloom which decreases lock time on you and makes you easier to hit), because its compensated by nano. ASB just aggravated the issue.

Adressing the drawbacks to be more on par with each other is the key IMO to acceptable solution. Also, nano and kiting setups in general need to be balanced so they cant perma kite, because if you can choose to perma kite and be most of the time able to disengage, you'll always chose that instead to commit to a fight in hard tackle range.


wot

Sig bloom is always bad, makes you easier to hit, faster to target and if you're being shot by a large size of weaponry, makes you take more damage.

Nano 'compensates' for this, sure, but how is nano also not compensating for being slower? The whole point of nano is to make your ships faster.

As for 'perma' kiting, sure you can gimp your fit to keep your MWD online and be cap stable, but you're stupid if you do. MWDs already require large amounts of cap. What more do you want?
Sigras
Conglomo
#30 - 2012-08-31 08:08:16 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Sig bloom is always bad, makes you easier to hit, faster to target and if you're being shot by a large size of weaponry, makes you take more damage.

nobody ever said that sig bloom isnt bad, we're just saying that it isnt as bad as being slower. Being slower makes you take more damage, and it removes your ability to dictate range and/or disengage.

Paikis wrote:
Nano 'compensates' for this, sure, but how is nano also not compensating for being slower? The whole point of nano is to make your ships faster.

In a kiting situation there are two groups:
1. the fastest group - It gets to dictate range and disengage if you get in trouble
2. not the fastest group - it doesnt get to dictate range and has no ability to disengage.

That and nanofibers/overdrive injectors are low slots meaning every one you fit reduces your tank.

Paikis wrote:
As for 'perma' kiting, sure you can gimp your fit to keep your MWD online and be cap stable, but you're stupid if you do. MWDs already require large amounts of cap. What more do you want?

all you really have to do is keep your MWD on longer than your opponent, it doesnt have to be perma-run, just able to pulse and stay ahead of the armor ship chasing it.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-08-31 08:44:42 UTC
Good points.

Let us consider a different direction.

It seems to me the problem is in webs. That is what has led us here. The range is too short and they do too little. The fastest race has become the best because the counter to speed is now more speed. (Longer range webs could have countered the nano ships of old too.)

I have been saying for a long time that webs need falloff. Scripts to create trade-offs are another option. Small/medium/large modules should also be considered. A long range and short range module separation, in conjunction with other changes, could help. Long ago skills to affect web/scram were planned and scrapped. They should be revisited.

Question:

If the web, with maybe a cap use drawback, had falloff to reach the long range scram mod, how would that change the Hurricane/Hurricane match? Could this be the answer to the problem? This also would help the Caldari, who shield tank better but do not have the speed advantage. It seems to be Minmatar and webs as the problem; not armor drawbacks and shield advantages.

If the problem was really shield tanking, several Caldari ships (besides the Drake) would be in the place of Winmatar (who displaced the Drake more than once with the Cane). Now that ASBs are in game they have seen a boost, but that does not explain the older speed (perhaps not armor at all) problem.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#32 - 2012-08-31 10:58:27 UTC
Sigras wrote:
In a kiting situation there are two groups:
1. the fastest group - It gets to dictate range and disengage if you get in trouble
2. not the fastest group - it doesnt get to dictate range and has no ability to disengage.


So you want all ships to be the same speed?
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-08-31 17:18:39 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Sigras wrote:
In a kiting situation there are two groups:
1. the fastest group - It gets to dictate range and disengage if you get in trouble
2. not the fastest group - it doesnt get to dictate range and has no ability to disengage.


So you want all ships to be the same speed?

I don't, but there needs to be a counter to speed beside more speed, as I mentioned above. Webs tweaked with falloff/scripts/diversity is my suggestion. I think they are the real problem and have been since the beginning of EVE.
Sigras
Conglomo
#34 - 2012-08-31 19:16:28 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Good points.

Let us consider a different direction.

It seems to me the problem is in webs. That is what has led us here. The range is too short and they do too little. The fastest race has become the best because the counter to speed is now more speed. (Longer range webs could have countered the nano ships of old too.)

I have been saying for a long time that webs need falloff. Scripts to create trade-offs are another option. Small/medium/large modules should also be considered. A long range and short range module separation, in conjunction with other changes, could help. Long ago skills to affect web/scram were planned and scrapped. They should be revisited.

Question:

If the web, with maybe a cap use drawback, had falloff to reach the long range scram mod, how would that change the Hurricane/Hurricane match? Could this be the answer to the problem? This also would help the Caldari, who shield tank better but do not have the speed advantage. It seems to be Minmatar and webs as the problem; not armor drawbacks and shield advantages.

If the problem was really shield tanking, several Caldari ships (besides the Drake) would be in the place of Winmatar (who displaced the Drake more than once with the Cane). Now that ASBs are in game they have seen a boost, but that does not explain the older speed (perhaps not armor at all) problem.

I agree, webs could fix the problem but, I feel like the problem with this is balance. It would be almost impossible to balance those webs. They would either be useless or they would make shield ships useless.

I really think the key is in the agility. Armor plates shouldnt effect your top speed (in space you shouldnt even have a top speed, but anyway) they should effect your inertia. same with armor rigs. They should effect your inertia to such a point that its noticable.

It would be interesting to see gallente ships be the fastest ships, but the least agile. This would mean that you could still kite gallente ships, but you couldnt do it by just hitting "keep at range" you would have to turn and weave in order to take advantage of your superior agility.
Sigras
Conglomo
#35 - 2012-08-31 19:22:31 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Sigras wrote:
In a kiting situation there are two groups:
1. the fastest group - It gets to dictate range and disengage if you get in trouble
2. not the fastest group - it doesnt get to dictate range and has no ability to disengage.


So you want all ships to be the same speed?

no, but I dont want shield ships to be the "fast ships" and armor ships to be the "slow ships" it should be dependant on fit.

I suppose you could just not fit armor rigs to your armor ship, but that seems a bit like an over nerf to me dont you think?

This is why im in favor of an agility nerf not a speed nerf to armor rigs.
PinkKnife
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2012-08-31 19:25:01 UTC  |  Edited by: PinkKnife
There are two issues here:

1. Active Tanking vs Passive (buffer) tanking.
2. Shield tanking vs Armor tanking.

This being about armor tanking, I'll leave the passive/active argument out of it.

The fix for this is to simply have shield extenders penalties drastically increased so that signature radius becomes something to worry about.

As of now, speed is drastically more important than signature as it aids in range control and dictation, as well as commitment or not. Signature just changes how fast you are to lock, and how easy you are to hit. Those aren't equal trade-offs.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#37 - 2012-08-31 19:50:19 UTC
Sigras wrote:
I agree, webs could fix the problem but, I feel like the problem with this is balance. It would be almost impossible to balance those webs. They would either be useless or they would make shield ships useless.

Well, if the falloff dropped a 40% web to 20%, that would slow down the shield Cane to 1147.2, which still isn't enough . But. A dual web would bring it down to under or around 1000. Now we have similar speeds and a hope to catch up. The shield Cane can keep some range over time, but not forever. The armor Cane might be able to tank the damage, plus the web would increase in effectiveness over time. The armor Cane would eventually have a true speed advantage, allowing it to then partially speed tank. The shield Cane would have to disengage early or not at all, providing it did not get to close by mistake.

I think this would make it a close fight; a much better situation then exists. SP and experience should more or less determine who wins.
Sigras
Conglomo
#38 - 2012-08-31 22:31:48 UTC
so your suggestion is to have a 40% web with no optimal and a 24 km falloff?

hmmm . . . ok, that wouldnt unbalance the rapier/huggin/loki or the skirmish link.

Would it be too powerful? I guess maybe not if you needed two of them to catch a hurricane . . . it might be a bit overpowered on frigates though.

Ok, i guess i can roll with that idea
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2012-09-01 01:20:54 UTC
Armor tanks have their place on most ships that are capable of fitting either way. Shield fits are better for solo / logi-free small gang PvP, while armor fits are often better if you can put an organized gang together (with things like logi and recons as support). Watch Garmon and friends demolish entire gatecamps with a couple of armor tanked ships + a logi (sometimes) and tell me armor tanked ships are bad for small-gang PvP.

ASBs are stupid and should be pulled from the game. If active shield tanking needed a buff they should have looked into tweaking the stats on shield boosters, not introducing a cap-independent version that has almost zero fitting drawbacks.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-09-01 03:33:55 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
ASBs are stupid and should be pulled from the game. If active shield tanking needed a buff they should have looked into tweaking the stats on shield boosters, not introducing a cap-independent version that has almost zero fitting drawbacks.
I'm inclined to agree more on the side of CCP Fozzie, as he addressed the issue directly. I think he has competent notions of balancing. This module acts is virtually a cap injector and a shield booster in one.

CCP Fozzie wrote:
Firstly, we are very aware of the many problems we're facing in tanking design at the moment. The balance between active and passive tanks, and between armor and shield (and honour) tanking are both in need of work. ASBs have made parts of this problem better (adding new interesting gameplay and making "active" tanking more popular) while making other parts worse (too good in many circumstances, and skewing the meta further towards shield). Armor and shield tanking balance suffers because mass (and velocity) penalties are far more severe than signature radius penalties in most circumstances, and to a lesser extent because of the difference between shield hitting at the start of a cycle and armor hitting at the end. This is especially harmful for active tanking Gallente blaster ships that need that speed to get within range.
These problems are real and we are working on them, but the solution isn't to skew the ships themselves too far in the opposite direction. Our goals are to hit the problems at their source.
Previous page123Next page