These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1501 - 2013-02-28 17:51:39 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Hopefully we'll see a fix for mandatory cap boosters when the battleships get redone (right?).


like cap is an issue on battleships

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#1502 - 2013-02-28 22:05:45 UTC
Jonas Sukarala wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
Hopefully we'll see a fix for mandatory cap boosters when the battleships get redone (right?).


like cap is an issue on battleships


Cap is a massive issue for many battleships. All amarr and gallente with their cap using weapons as well as their cap using active tanks, and the rokh with it cap heavy guns. Add a mwd to the mix and none of them is good with cap, some are catastrophic. So, as has been pointed out already, the mythical mid-slot advantage of armour tanking over shield tanking really doesn't exist once cap boosters(often dual cap boosters) is considered.
Mund Richard
#1503 - 2013-02-28 22:42:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
X Gallentius wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
IMO, the biggest problem of armor tanking is that EWAR don't translate into EFT numbers...
With active armor tanking you lose the mid slots to capacitor booster mods. Example is dual rep incursus needs a cap booster to make it go. With that cap booster it's down to a scram and therefore can't control range.
Etc....
Edit: The other thing we know is that Amarr is the better tanking race - both buffer and active tanking. That 5%/level resistance bonuse plus an extra low slot > 7.5% active repping bonus.

So first armor tankers don't have more mids due to the cap boosters taking them.
And then Amarr is better because it has more lows.
Even if it usually translates into even less mids. Roll
... though I would like the resist bonus be nerfed, so I'm not disagreeing with you.

"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.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1504 - 2013-02-28 22:56:13 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
IMO, the biggest problem of armor tanking is that EWAR don't translate into EFT numbers...
With active armor tanking you lose the mid slots to capacitor booster mods. Example is dual rep incursus needs a cap booster to make it go. With that cap booster it's down to a scram and therefore can't control range.
Etc....
Edit: The other thing we know is that Amarr is the better tanking race - both buffer and active tanking. That 5%/level resistance bonuse plus an extra low slot > 7.5% active repping bonus.

So first armor tankers don't have more mids due to the cap boosters taking them.
And then Amarr is better because it has more lows.
Even if it usually translates into even less mids. Roll
... though I would like the resist bonus be nerfed, so I'm not disagreeing with you.


they need to swap the resist bonus for HP that way amarr will be plated and caldari shield extended then minnie and gallente as the active repping races, problem solved.....

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#1505 - 2013-02-28 23:41:01 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
Long winded reponse delete:

The entire problem is that dps can be applied by all ships, but active repping can only be applied when all the other ships are shooting you. So, anything greater than 1v1 and shield brutix beats armor repping brutix. Therefore: engagement envelope SUCKS for active reppers. (Engagement envelope is great for resistance bonus as we all know)

What they really need to do is have active armor have the ability to generate a "buffer" even when the the other side is not applying dps to the ship. This buffer would bleed back to zero over time. This way, the active repping would be beneficial even when the other side isn't shooting you. But whatever, will deal with it...
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1506 - 2013-03-01 12:25:36 UTC
The best way to do it has been requested many many times which is to give the 7.5% rep bonus the ability to carry to remote repair received. CCP Fozzie believes this would overpower the active rep ships. The actual tanking figures can be agueed till the sun goes down though.

If you do the math, a 7.5% bonus to repair received is only a little better than the 5% resist bonus effect to incoming reps (due to damage mitigation from higher resists). However when you start stacking multiple reps on top of each the tanking figures start to get a little wider to a lot wider.

Perhaps the active rep bonus should be reduced to 5% per level and include a 5% remote repair received part to the bonus. The offset of the local reps being less powerful can easily be made up in boosting the repair amount of armour reppers a little so that a 25% repair amount bonus is = to todays 37.5%.

However, after all this has been said, the reason this won't happen is because of what I believe CCP (Fozzie) thinks an active tank bonused ship should be fitted with moderate buffer plus a local rep to supplement incoming reps. This isn't a terrible way to make this work but it does still seem inferior to the resist bonus as these ships are still heavily cap dependent due to the fact armour reppers are not efficient enough.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1507 - 2013-03-02 13:07:18 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
IMO, the biggest problem of armor tanking is that EWAR don't translate into EFT numbers...

With active armor tanking you lose the mid slots to capacitor booster mods. Example is dual rep incursus needs a cap booster to make it go. With that cap booster it's down to a scram and therefore can't control range.

Etc....

Edit: The other thing we know is that Amarr is the better tanking race - both buffer and active tanking. That 5%/level resistance bonuse plus an extra low slot > 7.5% active repping bonus.

1) Active armor tanking do not imply 2 repers.
2) With one reper, you are not required to use a cap booster, and a nos can reduce even more this need (cap stability is rarely required).
3) Now, active armor ships are as fast as shield ships, hence the web is not required anymore (as the web never have been required on a shield ship).

Speed is the biggest buff armor received in this patch. Old paradigm of required web isn't valid anymore. And the AAR make the paradigm of 2 reper requirement not valid anymore too.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1508 - 2013-03-02 13:17:03 UTC
AAR is 1.69 T2 reppers.

Unfortunately active armor tanking above frigate level does indeed mean at least two reppers. Two reppers aren't anywhere near powerful enough except on bonused hulls with drugs.

Active shield ships without a web also have a slot for EWAR, so I fail to see your point really.


.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1509 - 2013-03-02 13:22:42 UTC
Roime wrote:
AAR is 1.69 T2 reppers.

Unfortunately active armor tanking above frigate level does indeed mean at least two reppers. Two reppers aren't anywhere near powerful enough except on bonused hulls with drugs.

Yes it is : a MAAR give you almost as many hp as a 1600mm plate does.

Roime wrote:
Active shield ships without a web also have a slot for EWAR, so I fail to see your point really.

That is wrong. That is not an active shield fit if you have a slot for EWAR, that is a weak, or light active shield fit.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1510 - 2013-03-02 13:24:02 UTC
Roime wrote:
AAR is 1.69 T2 reppers.


I fail to see where you came up with that number.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1511 - 2013-03-02 15:11:03 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:

Yes it is : a MAAR give you almost as many hp as a 1600mm plate does.


By the same logic, any ship with shield passive recharge has more EHP than an Erebus.

It gives 0 hp, it repairs your armor at X hp per cycle. You only get to cash in the theoretical hp from the repper, if your buffer does not run out before you have managed to get all the cycles out from the repper. For this to happen, the damage has to be close to or below the amount you rep each cycle.

Compare a 1600mm and AAR Vexor with otherwise similar fits (AAR can fit Ions, so it even has higher dps), put them against each others and you'll notice that because you can't rep all the incoming damage, your tiny buffer gets eaten up after only 5 cycles. The 1600mm plate can endure the AAR Vexor twice as long.

Of course, active tank wins if it can rep all the incoming damage, problem is that in case of MAARs and LAARs, that kind of situation is extremely rare.

Roime wrote:
That is wrong. That is not an active shield fit if you have a slot for EWAR, that is a weak, or light active shield fit.


By weak you must mean better than the AAR-only tank you suggest, right?

[Vexor, ASB]
Damage Control II
Co-Processor II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Overdrive Injector System II

X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator

Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I


Hammerhead II x5


350 hps (nine cycles)
599 dps
1945 m/s

[Vexor, AAR]
Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 400
X5 Prototype Engine Enervator
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M

Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I


Hammerhead II x5

272 hps (8 cycles)
559 dps
1729 m/s

As you can see, even with all the questionable fitting compromises, on an armor ship, three-slot shield tank is flat out stronger than eight-slot AAR tank and has just as much "EWAR PWNAGE" as the armor. Yes, it has thin buffer, but dealing with that is easier because the bacon appears immediately when you press the butan, unlike on armor. Unsurprisingly, AAR is even less better on a shield ship with proper number of mids.

Omnathious Deninard wrote:
I fail to see where you came up with that number.


From the AAR and MAR II numbers.

320x = 180 * 3

x = 1.6875

( MAR II base * Roime's mystery multiplier = MAAR base * addnaniteforprofit)

.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1512 - 2013-03-02 15:14:47 UTC
But you are not including the 60 second reload time into this equation are you, for anything longer than 8 cycles the MAR II will put perform the MAAR.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1513 - 2013-03-02 15:34:53 UTC
Nope, you are correct, I'm dealing with the MAAR as the burst tank module it's meant to be. Nanite lasts for 52 seconds on typical MAAR fits, if you let it run continuously. So well over a minute on most occasions, which is a long time in pew.

Anyway, I mention that 1.69 because in my experience a T2 dual rep Myrm falls apart fast when it faces two ships, I really don't see any PVP situations where less reps would be enough. It really doesn't work by itself (again, except on frigs), only with either a plate or one or two normal reppers.

And for pvp, I'll surely replace one T2 repper with AAR, and probably for PVE as well.

I've yet to test whether MAAR+MAR II+RAH Myrm tanks enough, on paper it looks like it could be viable.

.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1514 - 2013-03-02 16:33:02 UTC
Roime wrote:
Nope, you are correct, I'm dealing with the MAAR as the burst tank module it's meant to be. Nanite lasts for 52 seconds on typical MAAR fits, if you let it run continuously. So well over a minute on most occasions, which is a long time in pew.

Anyway, I mention that 1.69 because in my experience a T2 dual rep Myrm falls apart fast when it faces two ships, I really don't see any PVP situations where less reps would be enough. It really doesn't work by itself (again, except on frigs), only with either a plate or one or two normal reppers.

And for pvp, I'll surely replace one T2 repper with AAR, and probably for PVE as well.

I've yet to test whether MAAR+MAR II+RAH Myrm tanks enough, on paper it looks like it could be viable.

For burst tank the MAAR is 1.2* the MAR II, not 1.69.
If you want burst tank, the MAR II should be treated as overheated. Since with decent skills it can be repaired faster with nanite paste than the AAR can be reloaded. And with less Nanite paste used. Doing the same with the MAAR results in 90-100 seconds of down time for the rep vs about 60 seconds of up time. So it's not viable to overheat the MAAR the same way.
Additionally you can continue to run the MAR II without overheat at a much greater efficiency than you can run the MAAR with no charges if you don't have time to stop reps to repair all together.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1515 - 2013-03-02 16:42:44 UTC
Fair point, even if it takes a bit less nanite to repair the MAAR (T1 module vs T2).

Still you can safely run the MAAR heated for all the 8 cycles, maintaining the 1.69 ratio during that. Overheating advantage only comes to play if you can't pop your opponent in a minute or so.

60 seconds is too long for AAR reload, and/or the rep amount is too little?

.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1516 - 2013-03-02 16:44:52 UTC
In most cases, not all, it is better to burst tank with an ASB setup vs an AAR setup for the reasons we already know.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#1517 - 2013-03-02 18:38:14 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
X Gallentius wrote:
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
IMO, the biggest problem of armor tanking is that EWAR don't translate into EFT numbers...

With active armor tanking you lose the mid slots to capacitor booster mods. Example is dual rep incursus needs a cap booster to make it go. With that cap booster it's down to a scram and therefore can't control range.

Etc....

Edit: The other thing we know is that Amarr is the better tanking race - both buffer and active tanking. That 5%/level resistance bonuse plus an extra low slot > 7.5% active repping bonus.

1) Active armor tanking do not imply 2 repers.
2) With one reper, you are not required to use a cap booster, and a nos can reduce even more this need (cap stability is rarely required).
3) Now, active armor ships are as fast as shield ships, hence the web is not required anymore (as the web never have been required on a shield ship).

Speed is the biggest buff armor received in this patch. Old paradigm of required web isn't valid anymore. And the AAR make the paradigm of 2 reper requirement not valid anymore too.


1) As others have said, active armour tanking never works with one rep on anything above frigate classes, so yes active armour tanking does imply 2 or more repairers.

2) Even with 1 repairer you will normally require a cap booster. Bear in mind that the ships you're talking about are amarr and gallente both of which have cap greedy weapons.

3) A web is still a must. Running the mwd to keep up is madness from a cap perspective and blows your sig up to the point that nothing can miss you; a web removes the sig bloom issue and is much kinder to your cap hence it remains compulsory for gallente blaster ships and strongly advisable for amarr ships.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1518 - 2013-03-03 00:57:28 UTC
Roime wrote:
Fair point, even if it takes a bit less nanite to repair the MAAR (T1 module vs T2).

Still you can safely run the MAAR heated for all the 8 cycles, maintaining the 1.69 ratio during that. Overheating advantage only comes to play if you can't pop your opponent in a minute or so.

60 seconds is too long for AAR reload, and/or the rep amount is too little?

It takes less nanite to repair the module, but you also consume nanite running the module. Your T2 Overheated will use less than half the AAR Consumption non heated. If you heat the AAR it becomes less than 1/3rd the Nanite paste used to heat the T2 compared to the AAR.
And the AAR you can't keep running anywhere near as long. Since it's hard capped effecivly at 8 cycles, While even with minimal skills it's quite possible to push 16 or more cycles overheated out of the T2 before having to stop heat.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1519 - 2013-03-03 13:44:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Veshta Yoshida
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
And the AAR you can't keep running anywhere near as long. Since it's hard capped effecivly at 8 cycles, While even with minimal skills it's quite possible to push 16 or more cycles overheated out of the T2 before having to stop heat.

EFT's heat calculations are usually fairly accurate, so going by them with repairer situated in the middle of the rack with two mods on either side:
T2 can be heated for a total of 40 cycles before off-lining, repairing 352 hp/cycle, 2816 hp in 8 cycles.
MAAR can be heated for a total of 50 cycles (T1 stats > T2 stats) before off-lining, repairing 594 hp/cycle, 4752 hp in 8 cycles.

Beauty of using the mediums is that the numbers all line up with 8 almost being a constant, as those eight cycles also equate to the AAR reload time (61s, close enough).
By the time the T2 burns out after its 40 cycles (5 minutes) it will have repped 14080 hp at a steady pace throughout while the MAAR at the same point in time will have repped for "only" 24 cycles for a total of 14256 hp in three bursts .. leaving it 26 more heated cycles (not counting the cooling happening when its reloading mind you!).

Bottom line: Initial test results from SiSi were bang on when they came back saying that the AAR is like designed to work in conjunction with a plate as the buffer carries it through the reload cycles.

Seems to me that Ytterbium♥Fozzie did their homework pretty damn well.

PS: Who cares how much paste is spent one way or another. It is just ammo for the tank rather than guns .. don't hear people complaining about the cost of pressing F1-F8 even though that is just as high if not higher (PvP = faction ammo).
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1520 - 2013-03-03 14:13:15 UTC
Nikuno wrote:
1) As others have said, active armour tanking never works with one rep on anything above frigate classes, so yes active armour tanking does imply 2 or more repairers.

2) Even with 1 repairer you will normally require a cap booster. Bear in mind that the ships you're talking about are amarr and gallente both of which have cap greedy weapons.

3) A web is still a must. Running the mwd to keep up is madness from a cap perspective and blows your sig up to the point that nothing can miss you; a web removes the sig bloom issue and is much kinder to your cap hence it remains compulsory for gallente blaster ships and strongly advisable for amarr ships.

You are considering that the armor changes won't change *any* thing. There's nothing to discuss in these conditions.