These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Orien Ardent
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2011-11-22 09:21:43 UTC
MaiLina KaTar wrote:
This still going? I posted the solution on page 5 already. Read it, think about it, like it, pass it on, cause you know it's awesome.


Unless I missed something in your suggestion, your solution isn't fixing active tanking, it's just turning it into a third type of buffer tanking, capacitor one, which is similar to shield buffer tank.

Also, would this way of tanking work the same for both shield and armour reppers? If not, how would it work with each?
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#202 - 2011-11-22 10:02:37 UTC
The idea of making it into an Eve version of the venerable D&D Manashield is very appealing on the surface, but it comes from a system that has instantaneous health (HP) AND mana (Cap) options to begin .. since that is not the case it won't work.

In Eve:
- It would heavily favour midslot endowed ships as cap-injection would be the new black (ie. 50% of armour races are out).
- It would make a mockery of cap dependent weaponry as you wouldn't even need neuts to shut down an active tank fit .. just enough up front damage to drain the cap (ie. 100% of armour races are out).

As much I'd love to boost Winmatar even further ....
MaiLina KaTar
Katar Corp
#203 - 2011-11-22 10:46:42 UTC  |  Edited by: MaiLina KaTar
Orien Ardent wrote:
MaiLina KaTar wrote:
...

Unless I missed something in your suggestion, your solution isn't fixing active tanking, it's just turning it into a third type of buffer tanking, capacitor one, which is similar to shield buffer tank.

Also, would this way of tanking work the same for both shield and armour reppers? If not, how would it work with each?

It actually works very similar to what active tanking is right now, minus the limitations. Currently, cap usage is coupled to damage input just as much, but due to the whole thing running cycles tank HP output is capped via cycletime * HP output and doesn't scale. It's static. This is what people are complaining about, in a nutshell.

What I'm proposing is removing that limitation by relaying damage to cap directly and putting control over when that relay mechanism is active in the hands of the user (i.e. toggle module). The massive advantage lies in the fact that by tinkering with the conversion rate you get a very granular balancing mechanism. One which allows you to do way more fun and sophisticated stuff than the current system allows.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:
The idea of making it into an Eve version of the venerable D&D Manashield is very appealing on the surface, but it comes from a system that has instantaneous health (HP) AND mana (Cap) options to begin .. since that is not the case it won't work.

In Eve:
- It would heavily favour midslot endowed ships as cap-injection would be the new black (ie. 50% of armour races are out).
- It would make a mockery of cap dependent weaponry as you wouldn't even need neuts to shut down an active tank fit .. just enough up front damage to drain the cap (ie. 100% of armour races are out).

You can overcome all of this by messing with the conversion rate. For example, you can introduce whatever module type you wish to modify it in such a way that it partially absorbs neut/nos. That's just one tiny example of what you can do. The capabilities are literally boundless.
Orien Ardent
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2011-11-22 11:08:36 UTC
MaiLina KaTar wrote:

It actually works very similar to what active tanking is right now, minus the limitations. Currently, cap usage is coupled to damage input just as much, but due to the whole thing running cycles tank HP output is capped via cycletime * HP output and doesn't scale. It's static. This is what people are complaining about, in a nutshell.

What I'm proposing is removing that limitation by relaying damage to cap directly and putting control over when that relay mechanism is active in the hands of the user (i.e. toggle module). The massive advantage lies in the fact that by tinkering with the conversion rate you get a very granular balancing mechanism. One which allows you to do way more fun and sophisticated stuff than the current system allows.

Hirana Yoshida wrote:
In Eve:
- It would heavily favour midslot endowed ships as cap-injection would be the new black (ie. 50% of armour races are out).
- It would make a mockery of cap dependent weaponry as you wouldn't even need neuts to shut down an active tank fit .. just enough up front damage to drain the cap (ie. 100% of armour races are out).

You can overcome all of this by messing with the conversion rate. For example, you can introduce whatever module type you wish to modify it in such a way that it partially absorbs neut/nos. That's just one tiny example of what you can do. The capabilities are literally boundless.


Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. To me it seems it would work very similar to shield buffer, except that you can toggle it, and it drains cap instead of shield hp. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it isn't exactly active repping.

Regarding the second part, while you could modify conversion rate cheaply, you would still not solve the problem of favouring midslot ships and hurting cap dependant weapon systems without rebalancing ship layouts and possible equipment slots.
Dr Karsun
Coffee Lovers Brewing Club
#205 - 2011-11-22 11:13:10 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:


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)


The problem is that unless it's a small high sec war dec you can't really predict how much DPS will be thrown at you. Even in a relatively small (For 0.0 standards) gang of 20 people you get enough alpha to blow a bs before his cycle timer reloads.

High sec war dec -> you know exactly the amount of people in the enemy corp. If you've got good intel and it's not some huge blob-corp you can actually add all enemies to your friends list and manage them to see when they are online - thus predicting if you should roam around today with an active or passive tank.

0.0 -> the moment you enter enemy territory you will probably be reported on the local intel chat of the powerblock / group of alliances / alliance chat and instantly everyone who will be smaller than you will try to avoid you. The bigger fish will get a signal and come to you for a visit - probably as last time - alpha you before you fully cycle an armor rep.

Passive tanks are unfortunatelly far more versitile and if the enemy numbers and ships are unkown - you'll be best off with a passive tank.

Also -> ther's a huge disadvantage to active armor tanking compared to active shield tanking... The shield boost to hp is injected the moment you turn the booster on while the armor repper injects the hp the moment the cycle ends... Thus making you lose cap and wait instead of lose cap and gain instant hp injection.

Not to mention that instead of a cap booster you'd need for an active tank you can fit in, for example, an ECCM - allowing you to have yet another countermeasure against enemy weapons.

"Have you had your morning coffee?" -> the Coffee Lovers Brewing Club is recruiting! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=363976#post363976

MaiLina KaTar
Katar Corp
#206 - 2011-11-22 11:27:31 UTC  |  Edited by: MaiLina KaTar
Orien Ardent wrote:
Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. To me it seems it would work very similar to shield buffer, except that you can toggle it, and it drains cap instead of shield hp. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it isn't exactly active repping.

It's much more active in that it demands you pay attention to what your cap is doing and adjust your tank in a way that works well in the situations you intent to face.

You could, for example, put in a module that makes the tank much more durable when shot by multiple ships, while being vulnerable to small damage high rate of fire hits. You can make it strong against blasters but weak against railguns fired by megathrons. It's that granular.

Quote:
Regarding the second part, while you could modify conversion rate cheaply, you would still not solve the problem of favouring midslot ships and hurting cap dependant weapon systems without rebalancing ship layouts and possible equipment slots.

You don't do it cheaply. Refer to my post on page 5. The conversion rate is not just a simple modifier. There's a bit more complexity to it than that. It's mechanism that, contrary to the current system, allows you to fix most if not all the problems you guys put forth. That is, because contrary to the current system it scales correctly and provides a variable that gives you the flexibility to balance these issues out. With this method, slot layouts are completely irrelevant.
Orien Ardent
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2011-11-22 11:44:47 UTC
MaiLina KaTar wrote:

It's much more active in that it demands you pay attention to what your cap is doing and adjust your tank in a way that works well in the situations you intent to face.

You could, for example, put in a module that makes the tank much more durable when shot by multiple ships, while being vulnerable to small damage high rate of fire hits. You can make it strong against blasters but weak against railguns fired by megathrons. It's that granular.


Still, unless you can adjust your tank on the fly, it's the same as with shield buffer, just with more variety of hardener modules.
You could just as well create such modules for shield buffer.

Quote:
You don't do it cheaply. Refer to my post on page 5. The conversion rate is not just a simple modifier. There's a bit more complexity to it than that. It's mechanism that, contrary to the current system, allows you to fix most if not all the problems you guys put forth. That is, because contrary to the current system it scales correctly and provides a variable that gives you the flexibility to balance these issues out. With this method, slot layouts are completely irrelevant.


Could you give me an example how, without reworking equipment slot requirements and creating a bunch of new modules just for that, such capacitor tanking would not be dependant on capacitor increasing modules, which are in mid slots?
In case it does require a bunch of new modules, that's a whole lot of rebalancing needed there.

Also, an example how can it not hurt cap dependant weapon systems?
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#208 - 2011-11-22 11:50:43 UTC
SMT008 wrote:


I don't want active tanking to be a walk in the park, I want it NOT to be like running in a Lion's cage with a meatsuit.



******* epic. This sentence pretty much sums up the current issue at hand.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#209 - 2011-11-22 12:33:17 UTC
Mailinar :

You might want to create an additionnal module (ie not using regular shield boosters/armor repairers), in wich you can put scripts to modify it's tanking ability. That way, it will be a totally new system, and devs can tweak it without hitting on small gang warfare's balance. Though it really needs to be tweaked. A slightly wrong thing could break the balancing.

And at the same time, apply the changes that I've put in the OP.

Everything is fixed :

Active tanking in large fleets

Fittable active tanks in small scale combat

Jerick :

Of course it's epic. Here at the Goonswarm Supreme Government of SpacePlanets, a high goodposting level is mandatory.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#210 - 2011-11-22 14:32:09 UTC
That's the difference with what I propose: using a script to modify the current reper into these active buffer.

And no, this system do not favor midslot ship, because both armor/shield and cap are limiters. The system is not "draining cap until there is no more; THEN drain shield/armor"; it is "drain BOTH cap and armor/shield" until ONE of them is out, and THEN go in heavy troubles".

This system is not more cap intensive than a current active tank setup. Have you ever ran once ? That is the core of active tanking: manage your cap between your weapons and your defense.

The difference with passive shield buffer is that the passive buffer will not drain your cap. On the other hand, with my system, you can turn your module in booster mode to regen your shield faster.