These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Hull-Tanking, your thoughts ?

Author
Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#1 - 2016-03-02 16:19:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
I'm looking for people's opinion on this mechanic, and IF it's in any way seen as unbalanced in regards to the time taken to train active armor or shield tanking skills effectively, for instance.

Hull-Tanking is pretty much the low sp shortcut to effective and almost on par durability in fights, and not even hindering that much on the dps anyway and succeed well with it. Opponent usually just runs out of cap or boosters well before your time, and yes im talking mostly frigs and dessies fights here.

So what do you think should be done with it ? If anything ? I for one dislike it very much as I feel it's a just a big needless FU to how active tanking gets to work in this game, and should probably be put down quite a few notches, perhaps in reducing overall powergrid output or reduced dronebay space, from fitting in too many of its modules + rigs ... or, something like that...

Quite a stupid mechanic imo, not to mention the overall 60% resists with DC. I understand it as a purely bait-mechanic point of view, but for it to win fights 1V1 against other non-bait and fully active tanked/dps ships, goes to show how unbalanced it currently is.
Ghaustyl Kathix
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2016-03-02 16:36:26 UTC
Hull-tanking is usually more expensive than armor-tanking, for example, because there's no good way to repair your structure except paying at a station, so that balances it out a bit. It's also worthless if you have any kind of allied logi on field.

The thing I don't like about it is that on certain ships (Domi navy and Exequror Navy for example) you get better buffer tanks structure tanking than armor tanking with less module slots dedicated to it and there's no way for someone fighting you to play around it. With an armor tank, he could potentially switch to your resist hole but that can't be done here.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#3 - 2016-03-02 16:38:41 UTC
Verlyn wrote:
I'm looking for people's opinion on this mechanic, and IF it's in any way seen as unbalanced in regards to the time taken to train active armor or shield tanking skills effectively, for instance.


Hull tanking may be OP on some ships, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with a concern of less importance than the relative training time.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#4 - 2016-03-02 16:41:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
Ghaustyl Kathix wrote:
Hull-tanking is usually more expensive than armor-tanking, for example, because there's no good way to repair your structure except paying at a station, so that balances it out a bit. It's also worthless if you have any kind of allied logi on field.

The thing I don't like about it is that on certain ships (Domi navy and Exequror Navy for example) you get better buffer tanks structure tanking than armor tanking with less module slots dedicated to it and there's no way for someone fighting you to play around it. With an armor tank, he could potentially switch to your resist hole but that can't be done here.


Agreed, the thing completely makes you wish you didn't have to spend micro-managing your tank in a fight and just go HullTank all the way ... for sure.

But it contradicts way too much on the tactical gameplay active-tanking currently delivers I think, and with still way too many advantages in regards to dps, and especially droneboats.
Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#5 - 2016-03-02 16:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Verlyn wrote:
I'm looking for people's opinion on this mechanic, and IF it's in any way seen as unbalanced in regards to the time taken to train active armor or shield tanking skills effectively, for instance.


Hull tanking may be OP on some ships, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with a concern of less importance than the relative training time.



It's a little more than the training time (but in any case that in itself is still pretty ridiculous).

I think a HullTanked ship should NOT be on almost same dps level as active-tanked/dps ships.

Active tanking requires at least some micro-management skills, hulltanking strictly does not, it's exact the opposite and so should have much much less of the active-tanking/dps benefits it currently has.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#6 - 2016-03-02 16:59:15 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Verlyn wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Verlyn wrote:
I'm looking for people's opinion on this mechanic, and IF it's in any way seen as unbalanced in regards to the time taken to train active armor or shield tanking skills effectively, for instance.


Hull tanking may be OP on some ships, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with a concern of less importance than the relative training time.



It's a little more than the training time, and more the if you'd read my post fully.



Oh, do **** off. You lead with training time. Then, you went into it in the next paragraph.

Learn to structure a ******* thesis.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#7 - 2016-03-02 17:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Verlyn wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Verlyn wrote:
I'm looking for people's opinion on this mechanic, and IF it's in any way seen as unbalanced in regards to the time taken to train active armor or shield tanking skills effectively, for instance.


Hull tanking may be OP on some ships, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with a concern of less importance than the relative training time.



It's a little more than the training time, and more the if you'd read my post fully.



Oh, do **** off. You lead with training time. Then, you went into it in the next paragraph.

Learn to structure a ******* thesis.


Yea apologies, so I edited my response.

PS: Thats why Im here, thx for the help :p
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#8 - 2016-03-02 17:03:56 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
I don't see a problem with it. It's a style that works on some ships, not all. There is more to this game than raw EHP and DPS. If I get into a 1v1 at 2km with a hull tanked Navy Brutix, I will have some trouble. So maybe I will keep some range on him? Same thinking goes for any other combat. You have to know your opponent and his capabilities.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#9 - 2016-03-02 17:09:26 UTC
OP, is this about your recent loss of an incursus to a Tristan? Be honest.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#10 - 2016-03-02 17:09:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
FT Diomedes wrote:
I don't see a problem with it. It's a style that works on some ships, not all. There is more to this game than raw EHP and DPS. If I get into a 1v1 at 2km with a hull tanked Navy Brutix, I will have some trouble. So maybe I will keep some range on him? Same thinking goes for any other combat. You have to know your opponent and his capabilities.


It will save you the active-tanking game yea, but if its against another but active-tanked NavyBrutix with boosters, trust me you wont even need to, your Htank will be enough to burn through his entire load of boosters and active-tank. I've actually seen and tested this, and with other smaller ships.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#11 - 2016-03-02 17:11:46 UTC
Verlyn wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
I don't see a problem with it. It's a style that works on some ships, not all. There is more to this game than raw EHP and DPS. If I get into a 1v1 at 2km with a hull tanked Navy Brutix, I will have some trouble. So maybe I will keep some range on him? Same thinking goes for any other combat. You have to know your opponent and his capabilities.


It will save you the active-tanking game yea, but if its against another but active-tanked Brutix with boosters, trust me you wont even need to, your Htank will be enough to burn through his entire load of boosters and active-tank. I've actually tested this.



Using what fits?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#12 - 2016-03-02 17:22:21 UTC
Just imagine, after the next patch it is truly no micromanaging at all, since DCUs will always be on.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#13 - 2016-03-02 17:28:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
OP, is this about your recent loss of an incursus to a Tristan? Be honest.

...

Using what fits?


Haha well no ****, wasn't the first time though, but in that particular fight one of my reps broke and he was halfway through his hull, so it's only half of what got me going here in the first place.

For the fits, take this one hulltanked NavyBrutix for instance:

Hi: x6 Heavy Ions II x1 Medium Neut II

Med: scram, web, capbooster, AB

Low: x4 Reinforced Bulkheads II, DC II, 2x Med armor repair II

Rig: x3 Medium Transverse bulkhead I

117k EHP and only about 80-100 less dps than an activetanked/dps one.

Put it against any other activetank NavyBrutix with a couple resist and a dps mod on, the above will still **** it up by a long shot. Be my guest and try it.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#14 - 2016-03-02 17:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Verlyn wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
OP, is this about your recent loss of an incursus to a Tristan? Be honest.

...

Using what fits?


Haha well no ****, wasn't the first time though, but in that particular fight one of my reps broke and he was halfway through his hull, so only half of what got me going here in the first place.

For the fits, take this one hulltanked NavyBrutix for instance:

Hi: x6 Heavy Ions II x1 Medium Neut II

Med: scram, web, capbooster, AB

Low: x4 Reinforced Bulkheads II, DC II, 2x Med armor repair II

Rig: x3 Medium Transverse bulkhead I

117k EHP and only about 80 less dps than an activetanked/dps one.

Put it against any other activetank NavyBrutix with a couple resist and a dps mod on, the above will still **** it up by a long shot. Be my guest and try it.


Uh... any other?

Because I guarantee you that if you swap those bulkheads out for active thermal/kinetic hardeners, it will rip the face off of that hull tanked one. Very small EHP difference (~15K based on your value) against therm/kin that way, except the latter reps VASTLY better. With no mag stabs, both have really anemic damage and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the hull tank just flat ran out of cap thanks to the reduced cargohold.

With a couple of aux nano pumps, it can actually just about permatank the DPS from your fit.

I probably wouldn't fly it, but you certainly can't claim that your particular fit is going to beat any active armor tank. ;)

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#15 - 2016-03-02 17:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Verlyn wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
OP, is this about your recent loss of an incursus to a Tristan? Be honest.

...

Using what fits?


Haha well no ****, wasn't the first time though, but in that particular fight one of my reps broke and he was halfway through his hull, so only half of what got me going here in the first place.

For the fits, take this one hulltanked NavyBrutix for instance:

Hi: x6 Heavy Ions II x1 Medium Neut II

Med: scram, web, capbooster, AB

Low: x4 Reinforced Bulkheads II, DC II, 2x Med armor repair II

Rig: x3 Medium Transverse bulkhead I

117k EHP and only about 80 less dps than an activetanked/dps one.

Put it against any other activetank NavyBrutix with a couple resist and a dps mod on, the above will still **** it up by a long shot. Be my guest and try it.


Uh... any other?

Because I guarantee you that if you swap those bulkheads out for active thermal/kinetic hardeners, it will rip the face off of that hull tanked on.


Like I said I tried it and I very much did the ripping, not the active one.

"Fairly" close fight though.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#16 - 2016-03-02 17:50:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Verlyn wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Verlyn wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
OP, is this about your recent loss of an incursus to a Tristan? Be honest.

...

Using what fits?


Haha well no ****, wasn't the first time though, but in that particular fight one of my reps broke and he was halfway through his hull, so only half of what got me going here in the first place.

For the fits, take this one hulltanked NavyBrutix for instance:

Hi: x6 Heavy Ions II x1 Medium Neut II

Med: scram, web, capbooster, AB

Low: x4 Reinforced Bulkheads II, DC II, 2x Med armor repair II

Rig: x3 Medium Transverse bulkhead I

117k EHP and only about 80 less dps than an activetanked/dps one.

Put it against any other activetank NavyBrutix with a couple resist and a dps mod on, the above will still **** it up by a long shot. Be my guest and try it.


Uh... any other?

Because I guarantee you that if you swap those bulkheads out for active thermal/kinetic hardeners, it will rip the face off of that hull tanked on.


Like I said I tried it and i did the ripping, not the active one.


You fit a rail incursus with an AB and no web, I can't exactly say I trust your results.

Just heating a single kinetic and thermal hardener gives you 120K EHP.

Application and most other EFT-warrior concerns aren't really a concern because they're otherwise identical ships.

It's certainly not diverse, but I don't see it losing to that fit. It holds almost twice as many cap boosters, does more DPS (room for a burst aerator), has comparable EHP, and reps VASTLY more.

Seriously, with it counterfit with active hardeners like that, the anemic damage on that hull fit would struggle to break a single ancillary repper.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#17 - 2016-03-02 17:53:02 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Just imagine, after the next patch it is truly no micromanaging at all, since DCUs will always be on.


Yeah, but DCUs will also be getting their resist bonus nerfed as well.

Having said that, I don't think structure tanking is unbalanced.
You have 0 ability to rep yourself, cannot be saved by logistics, and are dead when you run out of HP.

Oh, and bulkheads also give you an agility penalty.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2016-03-02 19:02:19 UTC
Verlyn wrote:


Quite a stupid mechanic imo, not to mention the overall 60% resists with DC. I understand it as a purely bait-mechanic point of view, but for it to win fights 1V1 against other non-bait and fully active tanked/dps ships, goes to show how unbalanced it currently is.


I feel this post took the high way to become a rant...

Also as already mentioned, there is no effective way to repair the hull damage except docking in a station or use the insanely slow hull reppers.
Genesis Dextius
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2016-03-03 04:04:04 UTC
An advantage of hull tanking compared to armor is it still allows for moderate speed. Most armor ships will have more low slots, allowing for more hull tanking capability. However, as with all armor tanking ships, you will have to decide how much you want for a tank and how much DPS you wish to dish out with weapon upgrades in the lows.