These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why does CCP hate armor tanking?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2013-02-18 16:38:23 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
That's like asking for a source on the existence of gravity.
No, it really isn't.

The claim was that the devs have explicitly said that cost is a balancing factor, and that it is being applied to the TQ builds. The market does not provide functionality for any such quotes. So no, the market is not a source for dev quotes, and even if it were, you'd have to point to the actual quote to properly reference it.

So, again, no source.

Oh, and just because some things cost more doesn't mean that cost is a balancing factor…
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#42 - 2013-02-18 16:39:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Mire Stoude wrote:
The cap usage is bad, but to be honest that is the issue with all active tanking (except active shield tanking)

Fixed.

Tippia wrote:
The claim was that the devs have explicitly said that cost is a balancing factor

I never claimed the devs said that. I said it. If you want a source for the devs saying it someone already gave you one. That illiteracy of yours is really getting annoying.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#43 - 2013-02-18 16:41:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Roime wrote:
Latest CSM minutes and Tranquility.
Ok, and the reference (on the CSM minutes, since TQ will not offer anything of the kind) is…? Provide the source — it's not hard… unless you just invented it.

Quote:
You will notice that a Thorax is cheaper than a Proteus. For example.
…which doesn't make cost a balancing factor. Again, my Nomad is not the ultimate Incursion or plex machine, in spite of costing a fair bit more than most capships. You are confusing availability with balance.

Quote:
AARs use cap boosters and nanite paste, so you need both a complex PI setup and mining.
Not as charges, no, which is what the problem was supposed to be.
Jame Jarl Retief
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#44 - 2013-02-18 16:46:10 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Alice Saki wrote:
Earn more isk.

Yeah sorry it must be my fault for not flying a drake like literally everyone in Eve.


What kills me is that they KNEW about it. For how many years has this been pretty much public knowledge.

How can anyone claim the game is in a good state, balance-wise, when graphs like these exist?

And they allowed this to continue for how many years? Cry
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2013-02-18 16:46:18 UTC
I just provided you the source, now go and read it.

Tell me then what is the balancing factors that prevents T3s from completely obsoleting cheaper ships? Your Nomad is a freighter, what does it have to do with cost as a balancing factor between combat ships? Nothing.

AARs still require a cap booster to keep it running on real-life fits, it does not combine two modules into one.

.
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#46 - 2013-02-18 17:02:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Uppsy Daisy
CCP Fozzie from latest Dev Blog here:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74270

Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.

So cost DOES play a part, albeit a non-linear one.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2013-02-18 17:03:01 UTC
Roime wrote:
I just provided you the source, now go and read it.
No, you really didn't.
You pointed me to a mass of text without any clear reference, and to a server that holds no quotes whatsoever.

So I'm leaning more and more towards your supposed source not existing at all, if you're this unwilling to support your claim, to the point where you desperately try to lead people onto snipe hunts — you are trying to reference a source that cannot possibly contain the information in question.

Quote:
Tell me then what is the balancing factors that prevents T3s from completely obsoleting cheaper ships?
Like I said: availability.

Quote:
Your Nomad is a freighter, what does it have to do with cost as a balancing factor between combat ships?
The fact that it's more expensive. If cost truly was a balancing factor, that huge price tag would count for something. It doesn't. All that five-fold increase in cost gets me over a normal freighter is a jump drive and better agility (and a bit more HP, which doesn't really matter), but that is balanced against what you actually want in a freighter: cargo space, and even then, we have that much-complained about fact that the basic freighter costs three times more than the ships required to kill it…

…which, since cost is not a balancing factor, is actually exactly how things should work.

Quote:
AARs still require a cap booster to keep it running on real-life fits, it does not combine two modules into one.
…aaah, so you mean we can't just look at things on their own, without a context? So the whole cap charges vs. nanite paste complaint of the OP is rather short-sighted? Who'd'a thunk it.
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2013-02-18 17:03:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
So you don't know either, then? Then how can you make any kind of claim about “unfairness”, much less about balance?


Please read full sentences and paragraphs before posting. I told you the reason just after telling that you, yourself, know the reasons very well.

Quote:
apart from the fact the ASB ship loses, oh, 60% of his burst tanking capabilities since he has no hardeners.


The problem you seem to be encountering (and deliberatedly ignoring) is that the problems you assign to ASB tanking also apply to AAR tanking, but not the benefits I am discussing.

Heavily neuted ASB tank still works. Heavily neuted AAR tank dies very quickly. And yet, you keep saying "but shield hardeners turn off when neuted" and "you can fit a cap booster". Well, Tippia: armor hardeners also turn off, mkay? And the reason ASB tankers don't fit a cap booster is because they can load those charges to ANOTHER ASB.

Trying to pass "hardeners turning off" as a SPECIFIC problem of ASB tanking when heavy neutered is very WTF-worthy, and absurd.

Quote:
No. Never. Largely because it can't be balanced to begin with, but also because it means that that kind of balancing requires costlier to be better, and that only ever causes imbalance. Cost was attempted as a balancing factor once in EVE. This left us with the never-ending headache that is supercaps.


I concede that to most players it's trivial. Still, it makes absolutely no sense to have ASBs filled with pennies, and AARs filled with 2.5 million ISK. This pales when compared to cap usage, size restrictions and forbidding multiple iterations of the moduls (which ASB users enjoy), but still is relevant enough to mention it.

Tippia wrote:
If you want to disagree with reality, then that's your problem. Try fitting any kind of battleship-sized armour repper on a BC or cruiser and see what happens. It's just one more way in which armour and shields differ. AARs following the same pattern only makes sense.


The problem is not that I disagree with reality. It's that you agree. Shield tankers fit multiple modules, armor tankers don't. Shield tankers fit oversized modules which give them incredible burst tanks for the ship size (LOL Harpy?) , armor tankers can't. And up until the new changes, armor tankers were flying bricks with crippled speed and agility.

I will repeat it: ships FAMOUS for their armor tanking capabilities (Myrmidon) were better off using X-ASBs and wasting their bonus sets than using TRIPLE DEADSPACE REPPER fits.

In keeping armor and shield different, they are creating a gap in performance which some players (me included) would like to see reduced.


Tippia wrote:
No, that's just a supposition. You have done very little to prove anything of the kind. You're harping on about cap and cost without showing what any of the modules translate into in terms of fits and cap usage and rep power and stamina and all the myriad of other things that will make any armour defence system differ from its shield counterpart.


No, excuse me. I am not harping on about anything. I'm not doing your EFT/SiSi homework for you. T2 fit Dual ASB Myrmidon with T1 rigs is better than triple deadspace rep Myrmidon WITH T2 RIGS.

You know why this AARs are being introduced? Because there was NO BALANCE.

The question here is whether the AARs bring enough of it or not. I think not. You see nothing wrong with armor tanking, but figures and CCP seem to disagree with you.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#49 - 2013-02-18 17:06:11 UTC
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
CCP Fozzie from latest Dev Blog here:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74270

Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.

So cost DOES play a part, albeit a non-linear one.

And the shield and armor boosters are the opposite of that. An exponential increase in cost for a decrease in effectiveness.
Eli Green
The Arrow Project
#50 - 2013-02-18 17:08:48 UTC
*grabs popcorn* continue

wumbo
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#51 - 2013-02-18 17:15:42 UTC
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
CCP Fozzie from latest Dev Blog here:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74270

Our vision for cost-balancing is that cost should play a limited part in balancing ships and that obtaining a roughly linear increase in effectiveness should require an exponential increase in cost.

So cost DOES play a part, albeit a non-linear one.
…and what it actually translates into is rather the opposite relationship: when they try to figure out what should go into the ship, they pick parts that make it exponentially more costly.

Cost will never make an unbalanced ship balanced — it needs to be balanced first, and can then be given a price that roughly corresponds to its place in the overall balance of things. It's actually more accurate that balance is a factor in cost than the other way around (since, as titans taught us, it doesn't balance anything out).
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#52 - 2013-02-18 17:17:01 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Quote:
ASBs use no cap when loaded, filling them with caps is cheap.
AARs will use cap, filling them with paste requires several times more ISK.
ASBs come in four sizes, are not limited to one per ship, and mid-size hulls (BCs) are able to fit one or two of the biggest ones.
Ok. So what's the actual effects of the cap usage? How does it translate into unfairness?
Cost is not a balancing factor, so that part is irrelevant.
Soft size restrictions are just of way in which armour and shield reps differ — it's not a balancing factor to begin with, even less so since, just as with the cap, you don't illustrate how it translates into any kind of unfairness.
I am in awe of this post.

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#53 - 2013-02-18 17:18:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Darius Brinn wrote:
Please read full sentences and paragraphs before posting. I told you the reason just after telling that you, yourself, know the reasons very well.
You said that I already knew, just like you did, which means you don't know since I don't. Simple. Now, since you don't know and can't tell me, I don't see how you can come to any of the conclusions you're hinting at…

Quote:
Heavily neuted ASB tank still works. Heavily neuted AAR tank dies very quickly.
Heavily neuted ASB provides no benefit, since the ship can't do anything, and the ASB itself is operating at half efficiency since it has no hardeners. The AAR does not, since it can keep itself cap injected with the booster that it fits and that, according to you, the ASB does not… oh, and it's an armour-tanking ship — it sports EANMs. Should it want to go for active hardening, those hardeners live on the same cap injection as the AAR itself.

So no, hardeners turning off is a pretty shield-specific problem, actually, even outside the world of AARs and ASBs.

Quote:
The problem is not that I disagree with reality. It's that you agree. Shield tankers fit multiple modules, armor tankers don't. […]
I will repeat it: ships FAMOUS for their armor tanking capabilities (Myrmidon) were better off using X-ASBs and wasting their bonus sets than using TRIPLE DEADSPACE REPPER fits.
…and thus you kind of disproved your own claim. So yes, armour tankers do indeed fit multiple modules.

Quote:
No, excuse me. I am not harping on about anything. I'm not doing your EFT/SiSi homework for you.
Yes you are. Otherwise, you have no point. You are making claims without supporting them with any kind of stats or performance figures. You're making claims in a vacuum about modules that are designed to be different. You are extrapolating from two stats and saying that this results in “unfairness” without filtering them through all the bonuses and modules and fitting space and that you'll encounter on an actual ship, and you go on to make claims about balance without showing how this (unproven) unfairness translates into any kind of balance issue.

So you are indeed harping on about meaningless details. The reason they're meaningless is because they lack context — they're meaningless in the same sense that the following sentence is meaningless: “Sufficient.”

Quote:
The question here is whether the AARs bring enough of it or not. I think not. You see nothing wrong with armor tanking, but figures and CCP seem to disagree with you.
Incorrect. I see something wrong with your argument since you offer nothing to support it. You are not asking a question. You are providing an answer based on suppositions and a complete lack of analysis. The figures don't show anything because you haven't shown any figures. CCP is not even part of the discussion.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#54 - 2013-02-18 17:46:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Heavily neuted ASB provides no benefit, since the ship can't do anything, and the ASB itself is operating at half efficiency since it has no hardeners. The AAR does not, since it can keep itself cap injected with the booster that it fits and that, according to you, the ASB does not… oh, and it's an armour-tanking ship — it sports EANMs. Should it want to go for active hardening, those hardeners live on the same cap injection as the AAR itself.

Why don't you compare it with a ASB with a cap booster or a second ASB instead of comparing 1 module against 2 and pretending it's equivalent?
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#55 - 2013-02-18 17:53:32 UTC
Tippia, you make tons of good posts but sometimes you're just trolling, like now.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#56 - 2013-02-18 17:53:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Tippia wrote:
No, you really didn't.
You pointed me to a mass of text without any clear reference, and to a server that holds no quotes whatsoever.

So I'm leaning more and more towards your supposed source not existing at all, if you're this unwilling to support your claim, to the point where you desperately try to lead people onto snipe hunts — you are trying to reference a source that cannot possibly contain the information in question.


Yes I did, you were just trying to avoid defeat in the face of pure facts as long as you could.

CSM 12/2012 Minutes, p.47 wrote:
Seleene brought up the issue of a cost difference, citing an example of the Thorax and Deimos. Since the
Deimos is significantly more expensive, Seleene reasoned, shouldn't it be more powerful? Fozzie agreed
to a point and said that the premium you pay for the Deimos should get something like a 20% bonus over
T1. Greyscale added that ships are quasi-balanced on cost, but so that a linear increase in power
correlates to an exponential increase in cost.


And the same principle was also mentioned in the balancing dev blog. So yes, cost is a balancing factor and you were wrong.

Quote:
Like I said: availability.


There is no shortage of T3s or materials used to build them.

Quote:
The fact that it's more expensive. If cost truly was a balancing factor, that huge price tag would count for something. It doesn't. All that five-fold increase in cost gets me over a normal freighter is a jump drive and better agility (and a bit more HP, which doesn't really matter), but that is balanced against what you actually want in a freighter: cargo space, and even then, we have that much-complained about fact that the basic freighter costs three times more than the ships required to kill it…


"price gives me jump drive but that is irrelevant because I try to desperately cling to my false assumptions"


Quote:
…aaah, so you mean we can't just look at things on their own, without a context? So the whole cap charges vs. nanite paste complaint of the OP is rather short-sighted? Who'd'a thunk it.


Yes, in a sense that he didn't realise that AARs cost cap boosters and nanites. It doesn't invalidate his argument of higher cost in any way, quite contrary.

You can go and look at AARs and ASBs as wide context as you want, we have done it already.

.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#57 - 2013-02-18 17:56:39 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
How is this fair?


CCP hates Amarr + They own the game = That's how it's fair.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#58 - 2013-02-18 18:00:48 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
How is this fair?


CCP hates Amarr + They own the game = That's how it's fair.

No that's how it happened. I asked how it was fair.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#59 - 2013-02-18 18:11:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Roime wrote:
Yes I did
No. Pointing to a 113 page document without any kind of reference, and to a server that cannot possible contain the information with no reference at all is not the same thing as sourcing your claim. You provided nothing.

Quote:
And the same principle was also mentioned in the balancing dev blog. So yes, cost is a balancing factor and you were wrong.
…and again, no. Cost does not change the balance of a ship, and they're not using it as a balancing factor. Quite the opposite: balance determines cost, not the other way around because the other way around is long-proven not to work, and they know this full well.

Quote:
There is no shortage of T3s or materials used to build them.
Yes there is. Enough to push the price up to its current levels — same as with pretty much everything in the game post market-based insurance. The materials are hard to get, which pushes the price up as the harvesters want to be paid well for the time it takes. This final cost does not afford the ships any more power than they would have, had the harvesters been less greedy.

Quote:
Yes, in a sense that he didn't realise that AARs cost cap boosters and nanites. It doesn't invalidate his argument of higher cost in any way, quite contrary.
Sure, but that argument is in and of itself irrelevant so who cares. In the meantime, his whinging is still without context, without reasoning, without anything backing it up.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2013-02-18 18:14:04 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Why don't you compare it with a ASB with a cap booster or a second ASB instead of comparing 1 module against 2 and pretending it's equivalent?
Because someone who shall remain unnamed said that the ASB users don't use cap injectors…

Vilnius Zar wrote:
Tippia, you make tons of good posts but sometimes you're just trolling, like now.
Now, like always, I don't troll. I simply ask the OP to provide some actual reasoning, evidence, backing, or other substance to his unspecified whinging. Some numbers, a use case, competing fits… anything would do, but no, instead we get “waah, it uses cap and costs ISK to run”.