These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Active Tanking (CCP, please read)

First post
Author
Walextheone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2011-11-11 09:46:19 UTC
Talking about active tanking. Whoever that did construct the Brutix didn't have a clue, did he? Blink

Few low slots combined with repping bonus + a weapon system that drains cap and don't have any range what so ever. Not even mentioning that the speed suck so bad you have probably use your MWD constantly.

All this for like 400 in defence with 2 reppers and 3 repping rigs? Even with navy cap booster 800 you can't keep your guns or your reppers going more than a few minutes.


I mean come on. Active tanking an armor ship means that you can't put any damage mods in. So IF you are inside the 1500 meters (optimals of Electrons) you can dish out 545 but the tracking will probably be aweful anyway.

Kite a battlecruiser at 5km is kind of big comedy in it self.

The repping power with this setup should, in my mind, be at least 800
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#102 - 2011-11-11 10:40:19 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...Another option is to use the heat system, but it's not hugely user-friendly and ends up with your reps being burnt out which is less cool.

Which is kind of the point as we don't want active repair to remain viable as gang size goes up.

Thermodynamics is the only skill I consider mandatory for PvP and the first I recommend people get if they ask how to get started with bloodsports. The truly "gf" is practically always the one where two or three racks are deep in the red from heat .. where you and your ship have been pushed to the brink.
What you seem to want is a mechanic that allows serial solo-pvp with no downtime in between fights which will be quite impossible to balance as it is multiplied ad infinitum by scaling .. there has to be a very real and very hard limit to the duration or you risk breaking a lot more than you fix.
MotherMoon wrote:
simple fix, the more people locking on to a target, the longer it takes everyone else after to get a lock.

BAM active tanking is fixed. your welcome.

And the mechanic will differentiate between friend and foe how exactly? You'd just have gangs with all but 2 lock slots used on each other to make an enemy take forever locking anything of value, surprised you haven't read all the times that idea was shot down Mother Smile
Walextheone wrote:
Talking about active tanking. Whoever that did construct the Brutix didn't have a clue, did he? Blink ...

It was king of the hill for the longest time thanks to that bonus, problem as with all things is that it got old .. it hasn't been updated since forever (same as other tier1 BCs) while stuff has been added and improved around it.
Heimdallofasgard
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2011-11-11 11:08:37 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
simple fix, the more people locking on to a target, the longer it takes everyone else after to get a lock.

BAM active tanking is fixed. your welcome.


oh god please no, I've been in quite a lot of large scale engagements (yes I kindof enjoy them sometimes! the massive fleet sizes, the slew of km's, the stressed out fc's and the possibility of caps dropping on you. amazing!) and this would destroy warfare at that scale, it'd pretty much make logi redundant as well..

As for scripts... maybe a single armour hardener with scripts for different damage types... CCP was it true that you guys hate scripts? if so... how comes? would be good to know :)
mental maverick
Percussive Diplomacy
#104 - 2011-11-11 12:43:05 UTC
I completely agree with the PG/CPU issues with fitting an active tank and lowering the fitting requirerments would help out alot in making active tanking more viable.

Cap requirement is also an issue, especially with ships that have cap dependable guns which ironically both armor tanking races gallente and amarr have. Making cap charges smaller is one solution, reducing cap drain on active tank mods is another.

The current cap requirements also makes active tanks extremely vulnerable to neuts. Sure, making cap charges smaller will increase the time you can stay in a fight but it wont help much against neuts. I think someone mentioned something about a cap hardener and I really like that idea. . A module that will make you more resistant to cap warfare by reducing the amount of cap drained from your ship. Yes i know, yet another module for your tank, but still... I don' have much experience with larger fleets using RR and Triage carriers but from reading some of Lord Maldorors battle reports I take it that cap warfare is an important factor in breaking an enemy's RR..?
Maybe someone with a bit more experience in that department care to comment on a possible cap hardener, would it screw up cap warfare on Logistics and Carriers in larger engagements?

There has also been some discussion in this thread about improving repping amount in an unsustainable burst to help deal with lots of initial dps and alpha. Currently overloading an armor repper gets you 10% to amount repped and 15% shorter cycle time. In my experience alot of active armor tanks struggle to be cap stable with cap boosters running and a lot of my personal fittings are not cap stable while overheating. A solution to the burst repping might be to Increase the overheating bonus to the cycle time. The increased cap usage and heat will prevent it from being sustainable for more than a short period of time.


And lastly, making active tanking viable in large fleet battles is not that important. As someone said earlier, active tanking has its niches where its used somewhat effectively, PvE and solo/small gang PvP. Trying to make everything fit into the mold of large scale warfare is not a good idea imo.


Disclaimer: I have lots of experience flying dual armor rep setups and not much with active shield tanks hence the focus on armor tanking in this post.
Xavier Quo
Ashfell Celestial Corporation
Ashfell Federation
#105 - 2011-11-11 13:46:28 UTC
how about a new kind of energized plating that turns a percentage of incoming damage into cap?
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#106 - 2011-11-11 13:56:19 UTC
Xavier Quo wrote:
how about a new kind of energized plating that turns a percentage of incoming damage into cap?



well i dont think cap is an problem for active armor tanking... The ammount of repaired damage at the time is just of no use, unless you use triple large armor rep hyperion. And eventhen X-large booster with boost amplifier will get the upper hand
Lando Tarsadan
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2011-11-11 14:23:29 UTC
might be way off here and it might not scale or anything like that esp on small modules but one of my issues with active shielding/armor is either I get the HP at the start of the circle(shield) or at the end of the circle(armor)

What would happen if you lower the init shield HP repair to like 60 % of today and then gave the last 40 % (what ever numbers) over time before the next circle starts. and opposite with armor slowly build up tics til the boost in the end jump in. might even make it so the "slower" the module (large/x-large/cap) have it so its more like 30 % boost and 70 % over time and small modules have 80 % boost and 20 % over time.

Overload today increases speed. (correct me if im wrong dont often overload) could be on thies types of modules they also add to either boost or over time repair (script could be a way of handling this) and so forth. Might be a combo og active/passive

Dont know if it would work or not. but its an idea :D
Xavier Quo
Ashfell Celestial Corporation
Ashfell Federation
#108 - 2011-11-11 14:57:20 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:
Xavier Quo wrote:
how about a new kind of energized plating that turns a percentage of incoming damage into cap?



well i dont think cap is an problem for active armor tanking... The ammount of repaired damage at the time is just of no use, unless you use triple large armor rep hyperion. And eventhen X-large booster with boost amplifier will get the upper hand


yeah, I just thought that addresses the scaling somewhat & makes a "role" fit for a ship that is going to encounter heavy dps, and in other situations it would be gimped - i.e. fit two or three reppers (or a heavy rep on a med ship etc) and the special plating, it can only really activate the repper(s) when damage is incoming without totally destroying its cap. it could also speed up rep cycle or whatever.

I think the situation we have now is decent for amarr mid/long range armour doctrine, but gallente close range doctrine needs something to protect them when they are moving into close range before firing. bit of tricky one really.
Something Random
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#109 - 2011-11-11 15:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Something Random
Apologies fif this has been mentioned.

Cant the rig system be used to improve this situation ? The main argument is that activ tanks take a minimum slot requirement to even start working properly, while buffer mods can be dropped in those slots with only improvement for each slot (none are redundant until the proper mod is slotted in)

What about rigs that are activ tank derived - require the activ tank skill sets and modules, and balance those in as effective extra slots. Amplifiiers i guess.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs´╗┐ all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.

Tellahane
Uther Industries
#110 - 2011-11-11 15:33:24 UTC
Someone may have suggested this already, and I may have missed it but why not have the % resists increase on the active shield or armor reppers only apply when the module is active? you still then have a limited capacitor use, if you double up you can scale up the tank because your scaling up resists at the same time, and still very vulnerable to capacitor problems.
Elson Tamar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2011-11-11 19:42:31 UTC
Now im new to pvp so take everything i say with a pinch of salt, i fly gallantee so i active armour tank.
Grayscale is right the main issue is the scalability and how we fight our games, if you buff reps too much you can just ignore incoming fire, i have fought the triple rep myrm and i lost. Look at the poor Brutix and its relegation to Hulk and Orca ganking!
Now the reduction in cap cost of hybrids will help this as your cap will last longer, which means rep longer.

The problem most affects Blaster boats the most too.
Now the obvious fix is to alter the bonus that blaster boats give and remove a bonus to active tanks and reppers and give bonus's to resists, that way you can choose to fit either an active or passive tank. This gives you flexability in fit and you can gank it your way, also it does it withouty changing how the modules themselves and may breath some life into some old hulls.

Theodemir
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#112 - 2011-11-11 21:54:30 UTC
Tellahane wrote:
Someone may have suggested this already, and I may have missed it but why not have the % resists increase on the active shield or armor reppers only apply when the module is active? you still then have a limited capacitor use, if you double up you can scale up the tank because your scaling up resists at the same time, and still very vulnerable to capacitor problems.



Doesn't sound too bad a proposition considering. Per cap usage, armour repairers would benefit more through longer repair duration(% resist bonus active for longer), but lesser repairing throughput in a small timeframe. Flip the coin for shield reps on the pro/con. However, wouldn't cap stable tank setups for PvE be a little too overtanked, should the resist bonus be too large or not affected through stacking penalties[and if it does stack, is it worth it]?That is if this debate is considering that prospect at all.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#113 - 2011-11-12 02:02:41 UTC
About those rigs, If you check Core extenders or Trimarks. There is no stacking penalty on those.

No trimarks => 100HP

Add a trimark, +15% => 115HP right ?

Add another trimark, you'll have more than 130HP.

Check nanopumps (Active armor rigs). They have a stacking penalty applied to them.

Roll

I'll post something about rebalancing rigs (All rigs, not just active tanking ones and whatnot) later, I'm tired right now.
Denuo Secus
#114 - 2011-11-14 08:30:39 UTC
I really like the mentioned idea of an inbuilt resist bonus of active repair modules! This tiny change would help so much. Add charge based burst mode + slightly lowered fitting and running costs -> active tanking would be much more viable. Pure buffer tanking would still have a place in large fleets with dedicated logistics.

@CCP: is this just theory-crafting or are there existing plans to make active tanking more viable? If so: please don't boost the "active tanking races" (Gallente, Minmatar) only! Boost modules, not ships.
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE
#115 - 2011-11-14 09:14:41 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements.


2005 called. They wanted to thank you for worrying about small gang pvp while it still happens, but that it will be a thing of the past by 2008.
Denuo Secus
#116 - 2011-11-14 09:31:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Arthur Frayn wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements.


2005 called. They wanted to thank you for worrying about small gang pvp while it still happens, but that it will be a thing of the past by 2008.


I do small gang PvP every day I'm online. It exists and it's a lot of fun.

Trying to make active tanking able to counter the blob would make it (ofc) overpowered in small gang PvP. But boosting it a bit (efficiency + fitting/running costs) would help alot. It shouldn't feel like a wasted slot when I fit an armor repper.
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
#117 - 2011-11-14 09:37:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Deviana Sevidon
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


Overpowered tanks in smaller engagements already exist. They are called passive shield with high recharge + buffer on ships like the drake.

Also the Hyperion is not a blaster ship and not an active armor ship, it is a failship, blasters and active armor will not work, because the ship has not enough lowslots and the PG and CPU requirements of active armor repairers cripple the ship to the point where not enough is left for MWD and Turrets. Even ignoring these facts the Hyperion has not enough capacitor to support the cap use of an active tank, turrets and MWD.

....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.

Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
SE7EN-SINS
#118 - 2011-11-14 10:12:33 UTC
Simple fix:

Make active tanking modules use less cap in general.

Give all ships with an active tanking bonus an additional bonus to cap usage. This doesn't need to strictly violate the two-bonuses rule - you have enough ships that have a 5% bonus to X and a 7.5% bonus to Y AND Z.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#119 - 2011-11-14 10:18:28 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


This guys seems to know his stuff.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
#120 - 2011-11-14 10:21:08 UTC
SilentSkills wrote:
Why not make the nanite repair paste (or a version of it) the "ammo" of active reppers, and then scale the amount used / min. accordingly.
I mean, the reppers use nanites to repair according to its description, so why not combine the twoand then tweak numbers


I like this.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]