These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Ship balancing] Why active tank bonuses are plain worse than resist bonuses

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2013-03-31 04:47:14 UTC
I agree. I would like to assume they know it, but it's so clearly wrong that I have to assume they are actually unaware.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#202 - 2013-03-31 10:06:13 UTC
and? bonuses should not be equal , you balance the ships to eachother not the bonuses
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#203 - 2013-04-02 11:50:39 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
and? bonuses should not be equal , you balance the ships to eachother not the bonuses


The imbalance in usability is caused by these bonuses.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#204 - 2013-04-02 12:40:08 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
and? bonuses should not be equal , you balance the ships to eachother not the bonuses


The imbalance in usability is caused by these bonuses.


Ah, that explains why the Ferox is so much better than the Cyclone, then. I did wonder. Straight

Fozzie did reply to you, BTW, you just didn't like the reply.

Quote:
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#205 - 2013-04-02 12:49:28 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
and? bonuses should not be equal , you balance the ships to eachother not the bonuses


The main problem being this bonus making the major imbalance you can't do one without accounting the other.
If you do, this results in current issues issues and straps to tanking modes but solves nothing.

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#206 - 2013-04-02 14:36:15 UTC
As boring and unoriginal as it may sound, changing rep/boost bonuses to resist bonus seems to be the ideal solution.

The reverse could also be done along with increasing the per level gain to 10% to offset the lack of fitting versatility but this would definitely be met with a lot more controversy than the first solution. I wouldn't put it past CCP to consider this though.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#207 - 2013-04-02 15:06:33 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
and? bonuses should not be equal , you balance the ships to eachother not the bonuses


The imbalance in usability is caused by these bonuses.


Ah, that explains why the Ferox is so much better than the Cyclone, then. I did wonder. Straight

Fozzie did reply to you, BTW, you just didn't like the reply.

Quote:
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.


This was an answer to a different question. It may have been diluted a bit throughout this thread, but the issue isn't so much that active tanking ships are bad at active tanking (which they aren't), but that being bad at buffer and remote tanking disqualifies them from larger fleet fights.

I'm totally fine with resist ships being good at active tanking.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Felsusguy
Panopticon Engineering
#208 - 2013-04-02 18:32:53 UTC
Better yet, you could just increase the bonus to active repairing. Or add another.

The Caldari put business before pleasure. The Gallente put business in pleasure.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#209 - 2013-04-02 19:27:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Iris Bravemount wrote:
the issue isn't so much that active tanking ships are bad at active tanking (which they aren't), but that being bad at buffer and remote tanking disqualifies them from larger fleet fights.


Plenty of non-resist bonused ships are used in fleet fights.

I mean, look at the current Top 20. It's hilariously skewed by Rokhs atm, but that's not representative, it's just because it's the start of the month, and I can't find last months data. But the Maelstrom is right up there. Note the presence of the Hurricane and the absence of the Ferox. The Rupture, instead of the Moa or the Maller, the Fleet Tempest instead of the Navy Scorp...

You're living in a fantasy world.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#210 - 2013-04-02 23:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Askulf Joringer
Felsusguy wrote:
Better yet, you could just increase the bonus to active repairing. Or add another.


Meh, just nerf the resistance bonus to 4% per level and then improve active armor reppers across the board by a small margin on t1 and t2 and a much larger margin on deadspace so they match the progression of deadspace shield boosters.

The problem with "fixing" active armor tanking via an improved rep bonus is that it only fixes it on hulls with said bonus. Active armor tanking should be viable on most armor oriented ships, even if fitted to ships w/o resistance or rep bonuses.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2013-04-03 00:19:55 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
the issue isn't so much that active tanking ships are bad at active tanking (which they aren't), but that being bad at buffer and remote tanking disqualifies them from larger fleet fights.


Plenty of non-resist bonused ships are used in fleet fights.

I mean, look at the current Top 20. It's hilariously skewed by Rokhs atm, but that's not representative, it's just because it's the start of the month, and I can't find last months data. But the Maelstrom is right up there. Note the presence of the Hurricane and the absence of the Ferox. The Rupture, instead of the Moa or the Maller, the Fleet Tempest instead of the Navy Scorp...

You're living in a fantasy world.
You're completely missing why these ships are being flown. All it demonstrates is that flying a ship with only one bonus sometimes wins out, if it's the RIGHT bonus. For example, people fly Maelstroms for the artillery, not the shield boosting. They don't even fit a shield booster at all most of the time. They could fit those 1400mm arties to an Abaddon just as easily, but they consider the rate of fire bonus more important than the armor resist bonus. Or maybe they want artillery with a shield fleet, not with an armor fleet. If I were running an armor fleet, I would ask people to fit 1400mm arties to their Abaddons.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#212 - 2013-04-04 11:41:01 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
the issue isn't so much that active tanking ships are bad at active tanking (which they aren't), but that being bad at buffer and remote tanking disqualifies them from larger fleet fights.


Plenty of non-resist bonused ships are used in fleet fights.

I mean, look at the current Top 20. It's hilariously skewed by Rokhs atm, but that's not representative, it's just because it's the start of the month, and I can't find last months data. But the Maelstrom is right up there. Note the presence of the Hurricane and the absence of the Ferox. The Rupture, instead of the Moa or the Maller, the Fleet Tempest instead of the Navy Scorp...

You're living in a fantasy world.
You're completely missing why these ships are being flown. All it demonstrates is that flying a ship with only one bonus sometimes wins out, if it's the RIGHT bonus. For example, people fly Maelstroms for the artillery, not the shield boosting. They don't even fit a shield booster at all most of the time. They could fit those 1400mm arties to an Abaddon just as easily, but they consider the rate of fire bonus more important than the armor resist bonus. Or maybe they want artillery with a shield fleet, not with an armor fleet. If I were running an armor fleet, I would ask people to fit 1400mm arties to their Abaddons.


BTW, are Arty Rokhs a thing?

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2013-04-05 08:31:12 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
BTW, are Arty Rokhs a thing?
Rokhs and Hyperions can't do 1400mm artillery very well, because they cost too much powergrid. They could do 1200mm artillery, but you lose about half of the alpha. So they're mostly just low dps ships that could be firing railguns instead.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Plyn
Uncharted.
#214 - 2013-04-05 20:34:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Plyn
Modify bonus to armor repair effectiveness to include remote repairs.

Active and passive tank will never be balanced otherwise, and even with this change active tanked ships might actually become OP. Actual percentage of effectiveness increase would have to be taken into consideration during testing and balancing to find a number that gives a worthwhile bonus without being too powerful.

The design vision of the game is for there to be ships which are fundamentally different. In some cases the active vs passive tank concept is what that difference is. The crux of the problem arises when gangs become large enough for logis to be used. After a certain threshold of ships remote reps will always be more efficient and realistic than local tanks. Once you cross this threshold, which isn't actually all that high, the ships which have the active tank bonuses lose the usefulness of that bonus while the ships with the passive tank bonus continue to enjoy that bonus.

For this reason when you see 20+ man armor fleets you can bet there will be a ton more amarr than gallente ships in their comp. It's just the smarter choice.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2013-04-05 20:46:11 UTC
Plyn wrote:
Modify bonus to armor repair effectiveness to include remote repairs.
You mean incoming repairs, right?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Plyn
Uncharted.
#216 - 2013-04-05 20:57:19 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Plyn wrote:
Modify bonus to armor repair effectiveness to include remote repairs.
You mean incoming repairs, right?

Yes. The bonus would apply to your local reppers as well as the reps that were coming into you from another ship. Make them easier for logi to heal, not turn them into logi themselves lol.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#217 - 2013-04-05 23:03:17 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
the issue isn't so much that active tanking ships are bad at active tanking (which they aren't), but that being bad at buffer and remote tanking disqualifies them from larger fleet fights.


Plenty of non-resist bonused ships are used in fleet fights.

I mean, look at the current Top 20. It's hilariously skewed by Rokhs atm, but that's not representative, it's just because it's the start of the month, and I can't find last months data. But the Maelstrom is right up there. Note the presence of the Hurricane and the absence of the Ferox. The Rupture, instead of the Moa or the Maller, the Fleet Tempest instead of the Navy Scorp...

You're living in a fantasy world.
You're completely missing why these ships are being flown. All it demonstrates is that flying a ship with only one bonus sometimes wins out, if it's the RIGHT bonus.


It's almost as if it's the balance of ships that matters, not the balance of bonuses. Blink

BTW, Fozzie ruled out making the local rep bonus apply to RRs received, stating that there was enough RR around already.
Plyn
Uncharted.
#218 - 2013-04-07 18:27:30 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Still no dev input for this?


What kind of input are you expecting? The maths behind it isn't exactly rocket science. They already know this.


Hmm, maybe an explanation as to why they keep it that way?

Because ships need to be fundamentally different. The game would be boring if everything were completely identical. There's a small handful of ship-types that break this rule because certain roles create situations where an exception is necessary.

Also, while I'm sure devs read like all of these posts, dev feedback on this board is rare at best.
Johnny Aideron
Order of Rouvenor
#219 - 2013-04-07 18:57:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Johnny Aideron
Gypsio III wrote:


BTW, Fozzie ruled out making the local rep bonus apply to RRs received, stating that there was enough RR around already.


Which isn't a very satisfying response. Even if the hull repair bonus applied to incoming reps it would still be worse than a resist bonus, so ultimately it wouldn't change anything except make the difference between those hulls somewhat less staggering in large battles.

Hypothetical example: Imagine a 25 man gang (with 20 dps ships and 5 logi) vs an identical gang. Each dps ship does 400 dps while each logi reps about 300 armor points/s. The only difference between them is that one gang has a 37.5% bonus to recieved remote armor repairs while the other gang has a 25% bonus to armor resists.

Both gangs put out 8000 DPS (before resists are taken into account) and rep 1500 dps. How does the different hull bonuses affect each gang? Well firstly the gang with resist bonuses reduces incoming damage by 25%, so the other sides DPS is reduced by 2000dps. Whereas the other gang get a boost to it's remote reps so their incoming repairs are increased by 562.5 dps. Also, the resist-bonused ships are less vulnerable to being volleyed by artillery.

So even with a bonus to recieved reps the resistance bonused ships win out! With that in mind they could at least throw them a bone here. If the balance team are unhappy with how remote reps work then they should overhaul the system, not arbitrarily leave a bunch of ships out in the cold because there's "enough RR already". It's logical fallacy since everybody brings masses of logi to fleets fights anyway, and giving active-rep hulls a bonus to remote reps would simply increase the diversity of viable choices (although, as noted, they would still be worse).

I doubt anybody has ever said, "you know, I have 10 Guardians and a bunch of triage carriers available, but since only Abbadons and Rokhs have hull bonuses that benefit remote reps, unlike Hyperions and Maelstroms, I've somehow mysteriously decided to bring less logi to the field. I mean, there's enough RR already, right?" Does that make sense?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#220 - 2013-04-07 19:57:04 UTC
No, it doesn't. You're still missing the fundamental points that ships should be balanced, not bonuses, and that non-resist-bonused ships are well represented on the fleet scale. Stop this silly theorycrafting and deal with reality. The problem exists solely in your imagination.