These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 1.5

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Naomi Anthar
#1241 - 2013-02-07 19:54:59 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers.
So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos?
Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones.

Will that be fixed someday?


comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration...


Bla bla bla. And then we should compare armor tanking to what ? Hull tanking ? Yeah. I guess so.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#1242 - 2013-02-07 22:02:45 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:

Bla bla bla. And then we should compare armor tanking to what ? Hull tanking ? Yeah. I guess so.

I still think you chose the wrong comparison, we should compare Armor tanking to Hybrid turrets or Afterburners.
Well, those things too use cap, so we can balance around that.

All in all, I just wonder how do you balance something if you don't have a comparison?

Skunky Denmark wrote:
Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same

So Kronos is designed to tank an empty space and Golem should tank asteroids? Right?

Whatever.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1243 - 2013-02-07 22:38:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers.
So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos?
Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones.

Will that be fixed someday?


comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration...

How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking.

I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same Ugh

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1244 - 2013-02-07 23:29:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Sergeant Acht Scultz
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Funky Lazers wrote:
I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers.
So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos?
Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones.

Will that be fixed someday?


comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration...

How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking.

I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same Ugh




I don't always agree with this man, I might have some specifics different opinions but in this very particular case, all I can say is: 1000² likes man.

And I'm fecking lazy to speak English well enough to say how much I love and think what he just said.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1245 - 2013-02-07 23:31:32 UTC
As to all the discussion about deadspace mods here... yeah, those really need to get fixed. The deadspace progression is pretty messed up. Shield tanking is tough with T2 mods, but far too powerful with deadspace (ASB's not included). I'd like to see them bring down deadspace shield mods a LARGE chunk, and T2 shield up ever so slightly. As far as armour bring the T2's up moderately/significantly while bringing down deadspace a bit. Deadspace should be a luxury that only improves the chances when tanking. Not an absolute necessity to active tank at all (ASB's not included) except in very gimmicky circumstances.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1246 - 2013-02-07 23:37:57 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
How's that?...

Direct comparison is the wrong way because of the module availability in the two racks used, slot counts in said racks and base resistances ... compare them yes, but not directly cap/cap, hp/hp, etc.
Fon Revedhort wrote:
I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same Ugh

AAR does just that, gives you the peak to the regular repairers efficiency, but it is a good point. There should be a wider range to choose from .. as a FW monkey I'd like to call dibs and have the navy reppers be insane in either department Big smile
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1247 - 2013-02-08 00:31:18 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking.

I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same Ugh

It's precisely how it shouldn't, because that oclude everything the systems don't share.

How do you compare the mid slot availability of the armor tanker versus the low slot availability of the shield one, for example ?

And in this comparison made earlier : why isn't the cap stability compared too ?

And how will you compare the availability of rigs to boost rep amount for armor but not for shield ?

Basicaly, active armor is designed to be cap efficient, but slow and not so bursty, though you can more easily boost the burst ability with rigs and add more repairer (there is more low slots than mid slots). On the other side, shield are built with high burst but very low cap efficiency, though you can boost this cap efficiency with rigs and boost amplifier (though this last one cost a valuable mid slot).
Aralieus
Shadowbane Syndicate
#1248 - 2013-02-08 02:58:45 UTC
Naomi Anthar wrote:


Shield have [b]invuls[/ba] nd active hardeners which is more than enough to be better at tanking.

My Pithum A-Type adaptive invul gives me 46% of every resists. Show me the same mod on armor tanking.

While i agree shields are vastly superior i must mention armor got active hardeners too. Just not omni. And that makes big difference.


Armor also has awkward resistance phasing wtfomgmycapisgone module Cry

Oderint Dum Metuant
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1249 - 2013-02-08 03:15:39 UTC
AAR description: "... Deactivating the module while it has no Nanite Repair Paste loaded starts reloading, if there is Nanite Repair Paste available in cargo hold. ...."

thats a showstopper for me.

As soon i am caped out or want to pause the reps to safe energy the tank is gone for 60s. It happened to me the first time i tried it on the testserver, fought a ship which had a neut and i had a cap booster. As soon my cap was empty and the rep stopped for a short period (short before my booster hit) it reloaded.

This basically means that the "short burst + sustained tank" promise won't work in most of the fights i am usually in.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Perihelion Olenard
#1250 - 2013-02-08 03:51:58 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
AAR description: "... Deactivating the module while it has no Nanite Repair Paste loaded starts reloading, if there is Nanite Repair Paste available in cargo hold. ...."

thats a showstopper for me.

As soon i am caped out or want to pause the reps to safe energy the tank is gone for 60s. It happened to me the first time i tried it on the testserver, fought a ship which had a neut and i had a cap booster. As soon my cap was empty and the rep stopped for a short period (short before my booster hit) it reloaded.

This basically means that the "short burst + sustained tank" promise won't work in most of the fights i am usually in.

That's why you disable auto reload. You can choose when it reloads, even if you turn the repairer off.
Antonio Steele
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1251 - 2013-02-08 03:56:31 UTC
one thing they should do is change the bonus for the repair systems skill to a bonus to repair amount per cycle. The shorter cycle time bonus actually hurts a lot of tanks as you have to then make compromises to keep cap up. For instance, If I train the repair systems skill up a level, I would have to replace an armor rig with a cap rig to keep cap up, and have a net loss in armor hp/s. Most people I know suggest keeping that skill at 4 as that fulfills all minimum requirements. Its the only skill I know of that people suggest not maxing out ever. It sucks.
Perihelion Olenard
#1252 - 2013-02-08 03:59:49 UTC
It doesn't hurt tanks at all. It increases the amount of repairing you can do in a shorter amount of time. You do not have to run the repairer continuously if you don't want to.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1253 - 2013-02-08 06:59:54 UTC
Antonio Steele wrote:
one thing they should do is change the bonus for the repair systems skill to a bonus to repair amount per cycle. The shorter cycle time bonus actually hurts a lot of tanks as you have to then make compromises to keep cap up. For instance, If I train the repair systems skill up a level, I would have to replace an armor rig with a cap rig to keep cap up, and have a net loss in armor hp/s. Most people I know suggest keeping that skill at 4 as that fulfills all minimum requirements. Its the only skill I know of that people suggest not maxing out ever. It sucks.


Most people never used to max afterburner either. They changed that now though.

But this would be somewhat of a nerf to armour tanks. You should realize that though it would be nice for it to repair more, increasing cap stability, it's also important that those reps land when you need them. Reducing the cycle time allows you to time your reps more easily. Shield has a large advantage here due to instantaneous boosts right when you need them. Armour you have to know exactly how long it'll take them to get your armour where you want it to rep, or you run the risk of letting them get you into structure before the rep hits, or overrepping and wasting part of a cycle, and you can only make that mistake so many times.

It's hard to strike a balance with something like this. And you might as well train it to V. There's no reason not to (you can pulse it when you need it) and if you ever need a faster running rep it definitely doesn't hurt to have.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1254 - 2013-02-08 11:53:13 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:
Most people never used to max afterburner either. They changed that now though....

They did what now? You are not by any chance referring to the oversized AB phenomenon where the saved cap is noticeable .. because I'll be damned if I (as a declared anti-oversizer) see any reason whatsoever to train that pointless skill higher than 3-4.

CCP did not do that, we players did in our never ending pursuit of min-max bliss.

As for the rest: That is the beauty of active armour, it is not a simpletons chosen method of tanking as it requires considerations and choices far beyond that of active shield .. absolute nightmare if one get hit with latency spikes, but with everything running smoothly one (read: I) get a lot more satisfaction out of juggling cap/armour/hull/transversal than just cap which is all active shield amounts to if you ask me and the main reason why I too consider the ASB flawed .. then again, could just be my Amarr hulls with neut bonuses talking Big smile
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1255 - 2013-02-08 12:17:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking.

I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same Ugh

It's precisely how it shouldn't, because that oclude everything the systems don't share.

How do you compare the mid slot availability of the armor tanker versus the low slot availability of the shield one, for example ?

And in this comparison made earlier : why isn't the cap stability compared too ?

And how will you compare the availability of rigs to boost rep amount for armor but not for shield ?

Basicaly, active armor is designed to be cap efficient, but slow and not so bursty, though you can more easily boost the burst ability with rigs and add more repairer (there is more low slots than mid slots). On the other side, shield are built with high burst but very low cap efficiency, though you can boost this cap efficiency with rigs and boost amplifier (though this last one cost a valuable mid slot).

The truth is, tech2 XLSB+SBA = 2 LARs in terms of cap efficiency and pretty much in sheer tanking, too. Armour having better default resistances is negated by invuls being so much better. In case for deadspace stuff - and that was the main point - shield tanking is plain better.

As for slot balance and availability, it is really flawed since TEs are so absurdly good and neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls. I guess I can safely state that if any ship would have X/6/6 slots lineup and no bonuses to tanking, it would be shield-tanked pretty much always. Machariel is a perfect example (and that is a 8/5/7 ship) - you hardly encounter active armour tanked ones at all.

TL;DR: tech2 tanking is more or less balanced, deadspace is not

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1256 - 2013-02-08 13:08:38 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls.


Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion....



Did you wake up and smoke crack today?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1257 - 2013-02-08 13:17:18 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls.


Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion....



Did you wake up and smoke crack today?

I'm not sure whether your racial level allows it, but you should be comparing that to proliferation of nanos, damage mods and TEs.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#1258 - 2013-02-08 13:36:12 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:

TL;DR: tech2 tanking is more or less balanced, deadspace is not


I'm not some EFT warrior, but here's EFT SS about T2 tanking balance.

Shield is better at burst tanking AND at sustained one.
Invuls make this difference even more distant.

Whatever.
Mund Richard
#1259 - 2013-02-08 13:56:15 UTC
Funky Lazers wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:

TL;DR: tech2 tanking is more or less balanced, deadspace is not


I'm not some EFT warrior, but here's EFT SS about T2 tanking balance.

Shield is better at burst tanking AND at sustained one.
Invuls make this difference even more distant.

For those not particularly fond of numbers, but saying armor has better resists.
After two T2 invulns and EAMNs the resist numbers in decreasing order on a caldari hull (for similar base resist profiles)
70.6 > 67.7 > 56 > 47.2 (avg resist 2.524 according to EFT)
74.1> 69 > 58.6 > 48.3 (avg resist 2.665)
Trick question: Which one is the armor and which one the shield? One is over 5.5% more effective

Addendum 1:
The following resists are achieved by 4d4h34m worth of training for one, and I think 59d6h13m for the other.
Which is which.
(Talking about active tanking, you need to have cap, so situations where cap is not available are irrelevant)

Addendum 2:
with deadspace mods:
84.3 > 81.1 > 74.8 > 68.5 (avg res 4.381)
77.6 > 75.4 > 66.4 > 59.7 (avg resist 3.312)
Hmm, did I load T1 somewhere by accident?

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1260 - 2013-02-08 14:08:04 UTC
efficiency (hp/GJ) :
LARII : 2
LARII + ANP rig : 2,3
LARII + ANP rig *2 : 2,6
XLSBII : 1,66
XLSBII+SBAII : 2,26
XLSBII+SBAII+CDCS rig : 2,51
XLSBII+SBAII+CDCS rig*2 : 2,8
XLSBII+CDCS rig*2 : 2

some comments :
- CDCS rigs do not increase your tank ability ;
- SBAII take a mid slot and less increase your tank ability than an invul, or even a second invul.

Hence, active shield tanking is a choice between efficiency and burst : you can reach the efficiency of an active armor tank, but to the price of tanking ability. Active armor on its side have less burst, but more ways to increase it -- easier to fit multiple repers ; more rigs, and notably one increasing both efficiency AND burst, a rig slot SBA in some ways.

Seem balanced to me ; both are mostly ineffective anyway (mostly, because *sometimes*, they aren't). I'm not talking about faction modules balance though.

Finaly, until now, there wasn't a lot of reason to fly armor tanked ship indeed, because, IMO, of speed superiority of shield ships. Though, with this rebalance, that could change. After these, a x/6/6 ship could benefit from an active armor tank with heavy EWAR capacities, because now he will be able to counter the strength of his ennemy instead of waiting for him to decide about how the engagement will fare.