These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Ignitious
Lifeline Industries
#121 - 2013-02-19 08:39:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:

As James Amril-Kesh points out, the short unload time on the ASB means you can often treat it as a plate (short of getting alpha:d to bits), but the slower cycle on the AARs would mean that you can't as easily do the same there — you might be dead before it has had the chance of doing its job.


I'm glad we're finally getting somewhere instead of arguing in circles Lol

I suppose I can take this time to quickly compare what might be a more fair comparison. While I think that bc's fitting XL Shield boosters is weird, it probably makes more sense to look at an XL ASB vs an LAAR so I'll look at the hype vs mael:

A T1 LAR gives 600, BS 5 brings it to 825 per cycle, so a LAAR will give 2.25x that with charges -> 1856.25, with 2x aux nano pumps, 2413 armor per cycle. 8 Cycles so 19,305 armor. Cycle time is 11.25, so 90 seconds to use it all.

An XL ASB ona a BS 5 Mael with 1x T2 Shield boost amp gives 1832 hp, 7 cycles for 12,824 total hp.

I think for battleships, this is a MUUUCH more comparable situation. This doesn't strike me as out of line quite so much.

It actually seems like the issue scales downward: battleships are comparable, shields pull ahead in bc's, and (I have yet to check) but will probably get further exaggerated with cruisers and frigs. So far I don't see many ASB'd frigs, probably because they are the most susceptible to being blapped and thus not benefiting from the large amount of shield ASB's offer over a relatively short period of time.
Cari Cullejen
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2013-02-19 08:49:52 UTC
It's not like there is a direct battle between shield and armor tankers, otherwise us gallente would be allyed with the amarr... That would lead to us getting pwned. The best solution is to cross train into shields, it's what I did.

What are you looking for here? Read the post!
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#123 - 2013-02-19 09:45:29 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Darius Brinn wrote:

I'm claiming that armor and shield tanking should perform equally, or that the drawbacks of one are compensated by other advantages. Actually, we see the situation is exactly the other way round: armor tanking bonused ships perform BETTER with shield tanks, and the introduction of these new AARs is not likely to change that.


I don't know if this is realistically true anymore. The biggest down side to active armor tanking has always been the rig penalties that slow you down. The buff to fittings and the ability to burst tank like a triple rep setup is pretty boss too. You're making mountains out of molehills.

-Liang


Perhaps. I can tell you I play the game, and I would have kept armor tanking some ships and shield tanking others whatever CCP does to them.

Also, I quite appreciate the changes, as everybody with working braincells could see that the main problem with armor tanking was the rig penalties which are being changed.

I'm in no way saying that armor tanking is VASTLY inferior to shield tanking, but that AARs as a counter to ASBs are somewhat lacking.

Of course I'll be using them. The first thing I will be doing today is refitting my Brutix and enjoying it as an armor tanker, in fact. But that doesn't mean I don't find ASBs much more appealing.
Hannott Thanos
Squadron 15
#124 - 2013-02-19 10:53:44 UTC
Imagine if CCp made an armor repairer module SO GOOD, that Drakes and Cyclones would throw away their shield bonuses saying "Hah, **** this, armor repairing is waaay better than shield on this ship"

And imagine if CCP made a shield tanking module that made the Myrmidons and Incursuses say "Pff, screw armor tanking, this new Shield booster is way better. Forget our armor bonus"..


Hey wait a minute!

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}
Ohishi
Apocalypse Reign
#125 - 2013-02-19 11:21:01 UTC
Why would anyone armor tank anyway when you can just get a tengu booster and have ridiculous shield resists and then slap 2 ASB on your ship and have the best tank in the game? It's silly to think that AAR are even a factor.

Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought.

Whitehound
#126 - 2013-02-19 11:52:31 UTC
Mr Ignitious wrote:

The fits are as follows:

[Astarte, AAR Sim 525 Tanked]
...

[Sleipnir, Laci Green]
...

Utter nonsense. This is one of the most idiotic comparisons I have seen lately.

The Slepnir is faster and has the range advantage - you even fitted it with a warp disruptor while you gave the Astarte a scrambler - and you seriously believe this makes the two comparable! The Astarte will not come anywhere near enough to use its web and scram or to apply any noticeable amount of damage to the Slepnir with only CN Antimatter. This is so much fail on several levels that I will not make an attempt to fix this.

Seriously, a gank Astarte is one of the dumbest fits I have seen. You then did not even care to get the CPU numbers right. You are only trolling.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
necronarcosis
Viper-Squad
Pandemic Horde
#127 - 2013-02-19 11:52:47 UTC
remove neuts from game problem solved . 5 x more problems made. :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#128 - 2013-02-19 17:36:46 UTC
necronarcosis wrote:
remove neuts from game problem solved . 5 x more problems made. :)

Heh.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Mr Ignitious
Lifeline Industries
#129 - 2013-02-19 18:35:30 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mr Ignitious wrote:

The fits are as follows:

[Astarte, AAR Sim 525 Tanked]
...

[Sleipnir, Laci Green]
...

Utter nonsense. This is one of the most idiotic comparisons I have seen lately.

The Slepnir is faster and has the range advantage - you even fitted it with a warp disruptor while you gave the Astarte a scrambler - and you seriously believe this makes the two comparable! The Astarte will not come anywhere near enough to use its web and scram or to apply any noticeable amount of damage to the Slepnir with only CN Antimatter. This is so much fail on several levels that I will not make an attempt to fix this.

Seriously, a gank Astarte is one of the dumbest fits I have seen. You then did not even care to get the CPU numbers right. You are only trolling.



I'm really not. The reason I compared the 2 is because they have identical bonuses to rep amount, and have the half-T2 resists. The most important thing to compare here was the strength of an AAR tank vs an ASB tank in the same class of ship.

I think that the comparison exemplifies this well, they are both bc hulls, they both have similar resists, and the same tanking bonus.

I'm not trying to say "An astarte sucks, sleipnir will own it!" I'm trying to say that the new AAR is inferior to the ASB.
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2013-02-19 18:41:21 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
So we finally get our ancillary repairer after shield tankers have already had their version for a while. Except ours uses cap and theirs doesn't. Oh and they get to use cap booster ammo for cheap while ammo for a medium ancillary repairer and one reload costs 2,400,000 ISK or so. How is this fair?


Tip 1

Get your 3 slot toons able to PI

Tip2

Build your paste

Tip 3

Profit

Option: fly shield ships.



Pro tip, you don't use pi to make paste.
Whitehound
#131 - 2013-02-19 18:45:06 UTC
Mr Ignitious wrote:
I'm not trying to say "An astarte sucks, sleipnir will own it!" I'm trying to say that the new AAR is inferior to the ASB.

Yes, yes, we already know.

Do you know that this is a good thing?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#132 - 2013-02-19 18:51:28 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:

Perhaps. I can tell you I play the game, and I would have kept armor tanking some ships and shield tanking others whatever CCP does to them.

Also, I quite appreciate the changes, as everybody with working braincells could see that the main problem with armor tanking was the rig penalties which are being changed.

I'm in no way saying that armor tanking is VASTLY inferior to shield tanking, but that AARs as a counter to ASBs are somewhat lacking.

Of course I'll be using them. The first thing I will be doing today is refitting my Brutix and enjoying it as an armor tanker, in fact. But that doesn't mean I don't find ASBs much more appealing.


Conceptualizing the AAR as a "counter" or "equivalent module" to the ASB seems completely fallacious to me. Even claiming that one tanking style is superior or inferior at this point is pure guesswork. Give it some time to let the meta develop and then start complaining. As it stands, you don't know whether 3 weeks from now we'll see every shield tanker in the game fitting T2 Rep + AAR and a **** ton of utility in the mids.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#133 - 2013-02-19 18:55:44 UTC
Mr Ignitious wrote:

I'm really not. The reason I compared the 2 is because they have identical bonuses to rep amount, and have the half-T2 resists. The most important thing to compare here was the strength of an AAR tank vs an ASB tank in the same class of ship.

I think that the comparison exemplifies this well, they are both bc hulls, they both have similar resists, and the same tanking bonus.

I'm not trying to say "An astarte sucks, sleipnir will own it!" I'm trying to say that the new AAR is inferior to the ASB.


I don't think that comparing those two ships will make for a valid comparison. For starters, the Sleipnir was considered better than the Astarte back when Armor tanking was the thing to do. It's THAT much better - and always has been. In the end I'd argue that all of you people are busy chasing rabbits over whether the AAR competes with the ASB and have missed the real issue: does armor tanking compete with shield tanking?

And IMO the answer is we don't ******* know yet.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Merouk Baas
#134 - 2013-02-19 19:19:51 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Conceptualizing the AAR as a "counter" or "equivalent module" to the ASB seems completely fallacious to me. Even claiming that one tanking style is superior or inferior at this point is pure guesswork. Give it some time to let the meta develop and then start complaining. As it stands, you don't know whether 3 weeks from now we'll see every shield tanker in the game fitting T2 Rep + AAR and a **** ton of utility in the mids.


Oh, come on, people can predict, based on available information about the module. We know; if the module remains unchanged for 3 weeks, they won't.

Here's a question: were there complaint threads about the ASB when it was introduced?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#135 - 2013-02-19 19:50:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Merouk Baas wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Conceptualizing the AAR as a "counter" or "equivalent module" to the ASB seems completely fallacious to me. Even claiming that one tanking style is superior or inferior at this point is pure guesswork. Give it some time to let the meta develop and then start complaining. As it stands, you don't know whether 3 weeks from now we'll see every shield tanker in the game fitting T2 Rep + AAR and a **** ton of utility in the mids.


Oh, come on, people can predict, based on available information about the module. We know; if the module remains unchanged for 3 weeks, they won't.

Here's a question: were there complaint threads about the ASB when it was introduced?

There are many modules and ship that, when first introduced, were confidently condemned as useless by the average EvE citizen. In fact, the Drake was one of them... so I concur that time will tell the tale. People need a chance to get their meta on and figure out how to use this module to it best advantage, taking all of the other little tweaks to armor tanking that have just come down the pipe into consideration.

Interestingly ASB's were hailed as "god mode" when first introduced. Now, a few tweaks later, that impression still persists... and yet more often than not the 1 minute "dead time" where the module is completely useless allows ample opportunity for the ship to be destroyed (even in a dual ASB setup, there is a gap). In longer battles, the immense size of the cap boosters needed to power them becomes a limiting factor all it's own... and when you run out you are quite literally done.

AAR's don't provide the huge, fast boost of the ASB... but they do have (combined with the other changes) some noticeable advantages which become more pronounced the longer the battle goes on.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see more tweaks to both AAR's and ASB's within the next few weeks.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#136 - 2013-02-19 19:50:31 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:

Oh, come on, people can predict, based on available information about the module. We know; if the module remains unchanged for 3 weeks, they won't.

Here's a question: were there complaint threads about the ASB when it was introduced?


Yes. There was lots of complaining about how the minute reload timer made the module 100% useless. Three weeks later, they were fit on ******* everything in the game.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#137 - 2013-02-19 20:12:37 UTC
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
So we finally get our ancillary repairer after shield tankers have already had their version for a while. Except ours uses cap and theirs doesn't. Oh and they get to use cap booster ammo for cheap while ammo for a medium ancillary repairer and one reload costs 2,400,000 ISK or so. How is this fair?


Tip 1

Get your 3 slot toons able to PI

Tip2

Build your paste

Tip 3

Profit

Option: fly shield ships.



Pro tip, you don't use pi to make paste.




Indeed, I'm stocking

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
Darius Brinn
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2013-02-20 08:49:38 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Darius Brinn wrote:

Perhaps. I can tell you I play the game, and I would have kept armor tanking some ships and shield tanking others whatever CCP does to them.

Also, I quite appreciate the changes, as everybody with working braincells could see that the main problem with armor tanking was the rig penalties which are being changed.

I'm in no way saying that armor tanking is VASTLY inferior to shield tanking, but that AARs as a counter to ASBs are somewhat lacking.

Of course I'll be using them. The first thing I will be doing today is refitting my Brutix and enjoying it as an armor tanker, in fact. But that doesn't mean I don't find ASBs much more appealing.


Conceptualizing the AAR as a "counter" or "equivalent module" to the ASB seems completely fallacious to me. Even claiming that one tanking style is superior or inferior at this point is pure guesswork. Give it some time to let the meta develop and then start complaining. As it stands, you don't know whether 3 weeks from now we'll see every shield tanker in the game fitting T2 Rep + AAR and a **** ton of utility in the mids.

-Liang


Honestly, I truly think that CCP saw the monster they had created with the ASB and were not happy to see ASBs in everything (a trend which you yourself posted about in these forums). Specially, I think they were not satisfied with armor tanking bonused ships being BETTER with ASBs.

Even the name (Ancillary Armor repairer) seems to suggest it IS an equivalent module to the ASB. The intended function of the bonus is essentially the same as the ASB's:

-Basically it's equal to an active tanking module.
-It works with or without charges, but without charges it's far worse than the equivalent "non ancillary" version.
-When loaded, it is better, increasing your burst tanking capabilities.

The problem is that in trying to keep different "flavors", they made the AAR the exact OPPOSITE to the ASB:

-ASB uses no cap > AAR has to use cap no matter what.
-ASBs come in four sizes > three sizes for AAR.
-Oversized ASBs are easy to fit > LOL @ trying to fit any large armor repper to a Battlecruiser.
-ASBs cost peanuts to load > AARs can't use the same charges.

Curiously enough, the ASB has a long reload time... but they did NOT give the AAR a short reload time :P

Basically, the ASB has CLEAR advantages over the AAR when performing its intended role. This is not an opinion > the AAR does not enjoy nearly as many boons over a regular armor repairer, while the ASB is magnificent compared to regular shield boosters in burst tanking. So much that, for the 100th time, armor repairing bonused ships ditch their bonus and fit ASBs instead.

Would it hurt to have the AAR NOT use cap when loaded with nanite? Or to allow smaller vessels to fit the largest ones?

For those who claim that there is no "imbalance", please heed CCP's own words:

Quote:
As we are rebalancing larger and larger ship classes, the imbalances in EVE’s current tanking systems become a larger and larger hindrance. The solo and small gang PVP metagame (as well as much of the PVE balance as well) has been skewed towards shield tanking for some time now and we need to start taking steps to rectify that imbalance.


So YES, CCP thought armor tanking was NOT BALANCED. They introduced good changes (the penalties for active tanking rigs and plate mass reduction) and so-so changes (the AAR).

Also, food for thought: you fly an Incursus, which costs between 200.000 and 300.000 ISK (from sell orders). You fit a small AAR which can hold 8 charges > the ****ing charges are almost more expensive THAN THE HULL!

Filling one AAR for a battleship costs just as much as 10 Incursus hulls :(

Yes, it's peanuts. Yes, I will still use the AAR and yes, I have enough Isk to buy all the nanite in New Eden and can also make my own. It's just a small inconvenience, but it's there.

New players wantint to pew in armor tanked frigates will have to pay DOUBLE now to have the most competitive T1 frigate they can fit.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#139 - 2013-02-20 08:57:52 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
...


A few comments:
- Yes, the designers were unhappy when the ASB overtook everything by storm. You might notice they nerfed it.
- ASBs do not cost peanuts to reload.
- Costs of Navy Cap Boosters and Nanite Repair Paste are set by players. Furthermore, Nanite Repair Paste is currently riding a speculation bubble. When the ASB was released it cost 2.3M ISK to reload an XL and the module itself cost 50M ISK even weeks afterwards. The prices have come down since.
- Cost is not a good balancing point for most PVP actions.
- The dev blog introducing the "ancillary" armor rep was very clear to outline that they were not expecting it to be the armor equivalent of an ASB.
- It is terrible form to quote CCP's post about tank style imbalances and claim that it still applies after a buff to one of the tanking styles.
- You are complaining about things that have always been true. These differences were there when it was "lol you want to shield tank in PVP?" and "Shields, PVP, Success - pick two" were common memes.
- You are ignoring the very important changes that have come in with regards to armor tanking. You must take armor tanking as a whole instead of cherry picking one module and harping on it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#140 - 2013-02-20 10:38:33 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
Basically, the ASB has CLEAR advantages over the AAR when performing its intended role. This is not an opinion
That part is not. The part where you go from that kind of cherry-picking to concluding that the AAR (and armour tanking in general) is much worse is an opinion, and you haven't offered much to back it up…

…because we really can't yet, beyond some number crunching (which you also haven't presented).