These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
12Next page
 

Dual Tanking

Author
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2017-07-13 15:57:50 UTC
So... I was reading a post in another forum where a new player was educated into the reasons for not dual tanking - spreading your tank between shields and armor. While the effectiveness is most certain and logical, it is at the same time really stupid. Why would you bother putting shields on a ship if they were meant to simply be ignored?

Consider a ship like the Maller, with its 3 mid slots and massive armor tank bonuses. You'd have to be utterly ******** to fit a shield tank on it, and yet, it has shields. Why would they bother putting shields on a cruiser that cannot shield tank even a frigate?

This is kind of a very massive change to Eve which would break any good fit, so I imagine it would never happen, but I'll put it out anyways because I think that the concept has merit.

Ships should all triple tank.

Their shields should give them solid resistance to Kin/Explosive, their armor should give them solid resistance to Em/Therm, and their structure should be as it is now. They would be strong in one of those three categories as they are now, but their other two buffers would not be ignored.

In order to reinforce this, hardeners would see stacking penalties against their fitting cost within their category. For example, fitting two invulns would mean the second invuln would cost 50% more fitting space. Fitting an invuln and a shield resistance amplifier would see the same fitting penalty. Fitting two EANMs, same thing, an EANM and a hardener, etc. There would also be a modifier based on the size of the ship so that you couldn't just brute force it with battleships and capital ships. Stuff like adaptive nano plating would need fitting costs changed.

Fitting an invuln and an EANM, however, there would NOT be a stacking penalty.

Rigs would amplify calibration costs of like-modules. For example, a second EM screen would cost 50% more calibration.

Plates and extenders would NOT see this penalty as they already have high fitting costs.

Now all of a sudden, all ships have very real resistance holes in their primary and secondary tanks, which if you mean to be efficient means you need to swap ammo (Hybrids and Lasers would be different from missiles and projectiles; where missiles and projectiles have selectable damage, hybrids would be therm/kinetic damage and lasers would be EM/explosive damage, allowing them to less effectively apply to either tank but equally effectively apply to both tanks).

Something like the Maller would have a tough armor tank on it, but with a big Explosive hole in it, their shields would need to be able to protect them from said explosive damage for "a while". So they throw either an invuln or an extender on to help plug their kin/explosive hole.

Benefits:
- Now fleets want shield and armor logi
- Because shield and armor logi will probably be present in fleets, doctrine flexibility can increase
- Players swapping ammo types mid-fight to account for breaking shield buffers will out-perform players that don't (skill?)
- Armor tanks are no longer "always tankier" because shield reps will seriously mess up someone who changed ammo
- Shield tanks are no longer "always kitey-er" because kite ships will probably still want some kind of armor
- Active tanks become much more viable in PVP, in spite of the danger of being neuted out
- Buffer tanks remain viable



Thoughts?
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-07-13 16:27:39 UTC
It would be an interesting way of redoing the entire game. Giving each ship slots dedicated to each tank type, and a couple left over for fitting/dps/misc functions. It might help prevent the stupider stacking, like someone putting on 5x of diminishing-returns items.

It also sounds like an INCREDIBLE amount of effort and balancing. But it would certainly make skill and on-the-fly adaptation more important than just "use this corp fit and bring armor/shield logi".
Cade Windstalker
#3 - 2017-07-13 19:32:29 UTC
As a thought experiment I think it's plenty interesting, just so long as everyone respects that underlined bit, lol.

I think my biggest problem with the general concept is that it makes fighting player ships NPC levels of predictable. If you were going to do something like that you'd have to make it much less predictable which tank type a ship is going to favor so you don't just automatically shoot the right damage at the right ship/tank type, and there have to be ways to be unpredictable.

IMO something like this would probably work better with a game that has a more block-placement fitting system as opposed to slot types with heavy restrictions like Eve's High/Med/Low setup.

That way you have more freedom to plug a hole and give someone a nasty surprise at a lower cost than Eve currently incurs, especially if you have to plug two per type.

Also I don't think anyone sane would ever tank a ship in Hull in lore. When you're taking Hull damage you're getting to the point of crew deaths with every salvo. The main reason stuff like Freighters end up hull tanked is because they have so very much hull and so very few crew. Basically their high hull is just a quirk of their construction, not an intentional tank decision.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2017-07-13 19:33:35 UTC
grgjegb gergerg wrote:
It would be an interesting way of redoing the entire game. Giving each ship slots dedicated to each tank type, and a couple left over for fitting/dps/misc functions. It might help prevent the stupider stacking, like someone putting on 5x of diminishing-returns items.

It also sounds like an INCREDIBLE amount of effort and balancing. But it would certainly make skill and on-the-fly adaptation more important than just "use this corp fit and bring armor/shield logi".


Completely agree - like I said it would break literally every fit in the game (except what is currently called a shitfit lol).

I wouldn't even say "slots dedicated to tank"... sure a few ships, especially the ones with 2-3 low/mid slots would need a slight rework, but ultimately, the player can fit whatever tank they want so long as they're able to fit it.

The fitting cost penalty would just make it important to diversify between shield and armor.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2017-07-13 19:41:30 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As a thought experiment I think it's plenty interesting, just so long as everyone respects that underlined bit, lol.

I think my biggest problem with the general concept is that it makes fighting player ships NPC levels of predictable. If you were going to do something like that you'd have to make it much less predictable which tank type a ship is going to favor so you don't just automatically shoot the right damage at the right ship/tank type, and there have to be ways to be unpredictable.

IMO something like this would probably work better with a game that has a more block-placement fitting system as opposed to slot types with heavy restrictions like Eve's High/Med/Low setup.

That way you have more freedom to plug a hole and give someone a nasty surprise at a lower cost than Eve currently incurs, especially if you have to plug two per type.

Also I don't think anyone sane would ever tank a ship in Hull in lore. When you're taking Hull damage you're getting to the point of crew deaths with every salvo. The main reason stuff like Freighters end up hull tanked is because they have so very much hull and so very few crew. Basically their high hull is just a quirk of their construction, not an intentional tank decision.


Honestly, strictly going by lore, a ship shouldn't have "structure" at all. Whatever gooey insides your ship has, the moment the first hull breach happens, your ship will turn inside out. If they were fighting depressurized (a la The Expanse), they wouldn't "explode" when they die.

I would disagree that it makes things predictable. 1v1, if they have a shield repper, you're gonna have to keep pushing their shield down until they need to reload before you swap to armor ammo. Otherwise, you'll have to work a whole lot harder just to get through their shields.

Gang or fleet fights, logistics pretty much guarantees you will need ships doing both shield-favoured and armor-favoured damage. Some ships to break shields, some ships to break armor. If one half of your fleet isn't strong enough, you may not have enough time to break the armor before the shields get repped up, and then of course the armor gets repped up too.

Completely agree that as a thought exercise, it could be exceptionally fun, with a great deal more reliance on having that buddy or group next to you.
Cade Windstalker
#6 - 2017-07-13 20:04:08 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Honestly, strictly going by lore, a ship shouldn't have "structure" at all. Whatever gooey insides your ship has, the moment the first hull breach happens, your ship will turn inside out. If they were fighting depressurized (a la The Expanse), they wouldn't "explode" when they die.


The Expanse ships are a lot smaller though, for the most part, and have a much lower level of tech. In Eve when a ship explodes it's generally because someone punched a deep enough hole to get to something explosive, or compromised the overall integrity enough that the whole thing breaks apart.

I generally just explain away things like hull breaches with "nanites deal with it".

Old Pervert wrote:
I would disagree that it makes things predictable. 1v1, if they have a shield repper, you're gonna have to keep pushing their shield down until they need to reload before you swap to armor ammo. Otherwise, you'll have to work a whole lot harder just to get through their shields.


That's pretty much what I mean by predictable though. You always know what ammo you're going to need to deal with each layer of protection, as opposed to now where it varies quite a bit based on fitting, and if you figure out someone's holes early in a fight you can gain a pretty big advantage if you're clever.

Old Pervert wrote:
Gang or fleet fights, logistics pretty much guarantees you will need ships doing both shield-favoured and armor-favoured damage. Some ships to break shields, some ships to break armor. If one half of your fleet isn't strong enough, you may not have enough time to break the armor before the shields get repped up, and then of course the armor gets repped up too.

Completely agree that as a thought exercise, it could be exceptionally fun, with a great deal more reliance on having that buddy or group next to you.


I think that sort of gameplay is generally going to float better in an RTS than a single-unit game. After all sitting around waiting for a role that may never come isn't a ton of fun, and neither is being blatantly ineffective but shooting anyway just so you're 'contributing'.

Overall to apply this sort of tanking I think you'd need to rewrite a huge chunk of the game around it, rather than being able to leave most of the other mechanics alone.

Damage locking especially would become an issue for lasers and hybrids.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2017-07-13 20:25:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Old Pervert
Nanites.. yes. When in doubt, you can either thank or blame nanites. One of these days I'ma ask CCP for a nanite missile to go and melt their armor off.

What I mean though in Eve is that an explosion requires an oxidizer - atmosphere in most cases. Even the fusion reactors wouldn't "explode" unless you were watching the infrared spectrum. Something like missiles, sure, they're self-oxidizing, but that's a pretty limited subset. In the Expanse, the Donnager was depressurized, and it was certainly a big ship. I guess small by Eve standards though.

Fair point on predictability there, yes you would certainly know a lot faster what you needed to use.. There would however be the potential for partially patching resist holes to throw a wrench in things. Imagine dual em ward fields, should in theory push shield em resists up to a good 70%. Now you'd have to apply thermal damage.

I touched on damage locking a bit. Hybrid and Energy turret weapons would be able to apply evenly (yet less effectively) to both shield and armor, where selectable damage would only apply well if the right damage type were chosen. I could totally see the "I don't have to change ammo types" as a significant plus in a high-paced fight, especially with the enemy ship's shields going up and down all the time.

If this did come to pass, I don't think anyone would be sitting around. Shield and armor logi would both be busy, if only by virtue of the general massive amount of damage that gets dealt in a fleet fight. If armor logi ended up spending too much time sitting around, then logi could simply be relieved of their shield/armor roles and just become "logi". Different slot layouts, role bonuses, attributes, and such would differentiate them enough to provide different use-cases for each.

The DPS that aren't applying well to shields would be applying well to armor, and visa versa; having one without the other would likely be doomed to fail if they had both logistics at the ready. So they would all be equally effective and ineffective at different points in the fight, yet essential regardless.

And now that I think about it, you could split your guns. Imagine a ship with 4 howitzers, 2 on EM and 2 on explosive. Hit them with the first volley with EM, then hit them with the second volley on explosive.
xHxHxAOD
nul-li-fy
Triumvirate.
#8 - 2017-07-14 18:18:50 UTC
U do know that eve already does this for the most part right shields have more base exp/ kin resists and armor has more base em/therm resist even if eve had ur idea things would not change a maller will not tank as well as a moa with shields so no there wont be bring both logi types as people wont mix tanking types
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#9 - 2017-07-14 19:12:09 UTC
xHxHxAOD wrote:
U do know that eve already does this for the most part right shields have more base exp/ kin resists and armor has more base em/therm resist even if eve had ur idea things would not change a maller will not tank as well as a moa with shields so no there wont be bring both logi types as people wont mix tanking types


Reading comprehension is a thing... try training it up to at least level 1, and then re-read the OP.
xHxHxAOD
nul-li-fy
Triumvirate.
#10 - 2017-07-15 04:49:02 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
xHxHxAOD wrote:
U do know that eve already does this for the most part right shields have more base exp/ kin resists and armor has more base em/therm resist even if eve had ur idea things would not change a maller will not tank as well as a moa with shields so no there wont be bring both logi types as people wont mix tanking types


Reading comprehension is a thing... try training it up to at least level 1, and then re-read the OP.

I read it and understood it quite well the first time what u fail to realize is that unless every ship is the same slot wise people will not dual tank even with these stupid changes thing is there are ways to plug holes using mods already trying to dual tank now just fails even more so with the changes proposed
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2017-07-15 10:21:56 UTC
While the idea is interesting, I just can't come up with any explanation for how would a lased deal explosive damage. That's not what lasers do.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.

Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2017-07-16 17:41:08 UTC
Dior Ambraelle wrote:
While the idea is interesting, I just can't come up with any explanation for how would a lased deal explosive damage. That's not what lasers do.


It's actually one of the biggest reasons we don't use lasers as weapons IRL.

When a high powered laser hits something, it causes the matter to sublimate into a cloud of super-heated gas. This gas then diffracts the laser beam, causing it to no longer provide any meaningful impact on the target surface.

A rapidly expanding cloud of super-heated gas is a textbook definition of an explosion.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2017-07-16 17:43:28 UTC
xHxHxAOD wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
xHxHxAOD wrote:
U do know that eve already does this for the most part right shields have more base exp/ kin resists and armor has more base em/therm resist even if eve had ur idea things would not change a maller will not tank as well as a moa with shields so no there wont be bring both logi types as people wont mix tanking types


Reading comprehension is a thing... try training it up to at least level 1, and then re-read the OP.

I read it and understood it quite well the first time what u fail to realize is that unless every ship is the same slot wise people will not dual tank even with these stupid changes thing is there are ways to plug holes using mods already trying to dual tank now just fails even more so with the changes proposed


You quite clearly did not read or understand it. Go ahead and train level 1 reading comprehension, and try again.
Cindy the Sewer
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#14 - 2017-07-16 17:57:01 UTC
Thankfully CCP has far better things to do with EVE online 1 and doesnt have the desire or resources to make EVE online 2 !

Your idea is too costly in dev time to end up with what would ultimately be a small change in the game in the overall scheme of things.

Searing destruction of your viewpoint is incoming and no you won't win the discussion or even walk away with anything resembling a win, so bail out early or suffer repeated embarrassments. You have been warned.

Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#15 - 2017-07-16 22:43:25 UTC
You've never killed anyone or been killed and are giving suggestions for combat? Or you know, you could post with your main.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#16 - 2017-07-16 23:46:45 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
You've never killed anyone or been killed and are giving suggestions for combat? Or you know, you could post with your main.


Yes... I could. But the words don't mean anything different, do they?
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#17 - 2017-07-17 01:13:12 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
Yes... I could. But the words don't mean anything different, do they?


Proving credibility does make a suggestion mean something different. Until that happens, I assume you are a newbie who doesn't know the game, or a vet afraid to post with a character you play with.

Either way, any post by someone with no in game history isn't taken seriously.
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#18 - 2017-07-17 03:31:33 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
Yes... I could. But the words don't mean anything different, do they?


Proving credibility does make a suggestion mean something different. Until that happens, I assume you are a newbie who doesn't know the game, or a vet afraid to post with a character you play with.

Either way, any post by someone with no in game history isn't taken seriously.


I see.

So, if I made what was subjectively the worst possible suggestion in the world for this game, but I had the very best PVP record in the game, that very worst possible suggestion would be less worse?

Or if I had some kind of ultimate idea which would perfectly balance every ship, niche, and aspect of the game but had a board filled with red ****-fits, that perfect idea would be less perfect?

No. They might be perceived differently, but only by dimwitted people unable to see past their epeens.

Now, had I been complaining that X was OP because it killed my Y, the boards would have relevant details on both theirs and my fit.

I suggest you examine the content of a person's comment, and look at their killboards for pertinent details. That way I can take YOU seriously.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#19 - 2017-07-17 22:52:56 UTC
Old Pervert wrote:
I see.

So, if I made what was subjectively the worst possible suggestion in the world for this game, but I had the very best PVP record in the game, that very worst possible suggestion would be less worse?

Or if I had some kind of ultimate idea which would perfectly balance every ship, niche, and aspect of the game but had a board filled with red ****-fits, that perfect idea would be less perfect?

No. They might be perceived differently, but only by dimwitted people unable to see past their epeens.

Now, had I been complaining that X was OP because it killed my Y, the boards would have relevant details on both theirs and my fit.

I suggest you examine the content of a person's comment, and look at their killboards for pertinent details. That way I can take YOU seriously.


Start making good suggestions and maybe you would have a point. Making bad suggestions with a throwaway forum alt doesn't really add much to you.

And yes, actions and history carries a lot of weight into what is good or bad. Why are you afraid to post with your main?
Coralas
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2017-07-17 23:20:10 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Old Pervert wrote:
Yes... I could. But the words don't mean anything different, do they?


Proving credibility does make a suggestion mean something different. Until that happens, I assume you are a newbie who doesn't know the game, or a vet afraid to post with a character you play with.

Either way, any post by someone with no in game history isn't taken seriously.


IMO a players PVP history is only relevant when they want to claim (a) pvp is boring or pvp sucks, or (b) that they are good at pvp or (c) that someone else is bad or worse than them at pvp.

Anything else is just your personal inability to understand that argument by authority is a logical fallacy.

12Next page