These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Damage Scalable Active Tanking

Author
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1 - 2011-11-20 16:34:06 UTC
I had an idea to make active tanking scalable with number of opponents and more versatile for fights :

Active tank can be described as a capacitor tank with the major drawback of being non scalable with incoming fire.
In this way of thinking, my idea is to give armor reper and shield booster a script which turn them into armor/shield reinforcer, turning them into active buffer.
small/med/large reper/booster would then absorb 10/20/30 % of armor/shield damage taken with capacitor at a ratio of armor/shield hp repaired for activation cost of the module (which is 2hp/GJ for tech2 armor reper and 1,5hp/GJ for tech2 shield booster ; increased by ship bonuses/rig).
Number can be tweaked of course, but this system would resolve the problem of scalability of active tanking by allowing it to function at its full effectiveness whatever the incoming dps ; full effectiveness being consuming all the capacitor.
Overload could increase the absorption amount by 10-20%, allowing the ship to tank more damage, but to consume its capacitor even more faster.

With the numbers I suggested here, here what happen with an abaddon using 5 slot for tanking :
abaddon 3eanm,DC,LAR2 : ~79% median resistance + 30% (new LAR) ==> 85,3% median resistance ==> 72279 aehp (armor ehp) ;; 21683 damage mitigated ==> 10841 capacitor used
abaddon dc, 2eanm, 2plates : ~75% median resistance ==> 84500 aehp

Then, active tank keep its natural drawback (cap use, less ehp than buffer tank) but now scale as well as buffer tank with damage. Better : current active tanking remain exactly the same and active tanker will have more options for fights ; and active tanking bonuses on ships will not be useless anymore in fleet !
Astroniomix
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2 - 2011-11-20 16:59:11 UTC
This can already be done by pulsing the booster/repper.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#3 - 2011-11-20 20:08:17 UTC
You miss my point.
Reper/booster cannot repair more than a given amount of hp per second ; so, in fleet, when you take too much damage for the reper/booster to maintain you alive, you die before you were able to use your defensive system to full efficiency (you where able to use only a few of your capacitor) whereas a buffer is always used at its full efficiency when you explode. Buffer scale with damage ; active tank do not.

My idea is to turn the reper/booster into an active buffer with a script. When you take damage, a proportion of these damage are diverted to the capacitor.

That way, when you take too much damage, your capacitor is vanished and you explode exactly like before, but you used your defensive system to full efficiency before doing so ; that is a system which scale with the amount of damage taken.

I hope it's clearer now ; and sorry for my strange English. :-(
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#4 - 2011-11-21 10:15:58 UTC
So, in essence, your ship would be invincible as long as there are reserves in cap?

I can't fathom on how many levels this idea is bad, as it would simply upend any design and balancing we currently have or strive to have. Just to begin, energy neutralizers would become an essential part of any attacker's ship, more so than they are right now.

It's simple as that. If you explode and you had plenty of capacitor charge left, your booster has been too small or you should have fitted shield modules instead of capacitor modules.

Untapped resources - be it CPU, powergrid or capacitor charge - mean that there's room for improvement to your fitting. Of course, plenty of cap charge left in normal conditions may be a lifesaver when facing someone with a neut.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#5 - 2011-11-21 15:14:29 UTC
No you wont be invulnerable because the module will only absorb a portion of the damages taken; depending here on the size of the module, but that can be tweaked; 10/20/30% of the damages will be absorbed in the capacitor for S/M/L size modules.

Such a thing would not break anything : active tanking is already vulnerable to neut as this script would be ; this active buffer is less powerful than a real passive buffer and keep its vulnerability to neut so it will not render it useless.

Moreover, by redirecting the efficiency of this tank on the capacitor, you will be able to choose between armor/shield rig and capacitor rig to improve the efficiency (but sacrificing the standard active tank); this would enable blaster boat to not sacrifice their speed for armor tank (and active shield tanker to not sacrifice sig radius).

CCP Greyscale said that the problem of active tanking were its inability to scale up with damage. Here is a solution which keep the philosophy of active tanking without breaking what already exists nor being overpowered for small scale engagement.

Please, tell me how I could write this to make it clear. :-(
Somal Thunder
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#6 - 2011-11-21 16:12:24 UTC
abaddon with cargohold expansions, large armor reppers and heavy cap boosters. GO.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#7 - 2011-11-21 17:12:50 UTC
Whatever you do, your active buffer will be less than a comparable passive buffer. Remember there is two limiters: armor hp and capacitor.

Here some more numbers, with a full tanked abaddon (no rig involved, it would bring too many possibilities and would surely be in favor of the passive buffer anyway, thanks to the trimark stacking).
4hardener (one of each type), DC, 2LAR2: 80,635 median resistance/10625 ahp ==> 90,51 with LARs ==> 111960 aehp (54867 real aehp; 57093 absorbed damages; 28546 cap consumed)
3eanm2, DC, 3 1600plates: 78,34% median resistance/26375 ahp ==> 121768 aehp

So, in theory, this active buffer come close to the passive buffer, but you'd better have plenty of cap booster and their charges to support it very long. A potential side effect is that it would be more efficient with remote repairing, but as soon as the cap go out, you are paper-thin and prone to die to not so many volleys.
I admit a blur with remote repair: added resistance is better for them; but you always have the capacitor limit; and even with no limit, your buffer is just less than a passive buffer; the difference is that you need both capacitor AND armor to make such a ship live long. I don't think that can be considered as OP, and as I said, numbers can be tweaked.
Somal Thunder
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#8 - 2011-11-21 17:25:52 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Whatever you do, your active buffer will be less than a comparable passive buffer. Remember there is two limiters: armor hp and capacitor.

Here some more numbers, with a full tanked abaddon (no rig involved, it would bring too many possibilities and would surely be in favor of the passive buffer anyway, thanks to the trimark stacking).
4hardener (one of each type), DC, 2LAR2: 80,635 median resistance/10625 ahp ==> 90,51 with LARs ==> 111960 aehp (54867 real aehp; 57093 absorbed damages; 28546 cap consumed)
3eanm2, DC, 3 1600plates: 78,34% median resistance/26375 ahp ==> 121768 aehp

So, in theory, this active buffer come close to the passive buffer, but you'd better have plenty of cap booster and their charges to support it very long. A potential side effect is that it would be more efficient with remote repairing, but as soon as the cap go out, you are paper-thin and prone to die to not so many volleys.
I admit a blur with remote repair: added resistance is better for them; but you always have the capacitor limit; and even with no limit, your buffer is just less than a passive buffer; the difference is that you need both capacitor AND armor to make such a ship live long. I don't think that can be considered as OP, and as I said, numbers can be tweaked.


It is OP because it is easily exploitable. Lets take the Hyperion since you seem to think Abaddons aren't good candidates for examples. IIRC the Hype gets 6 low slots, 3 t2 eanms and 3 t2 lars. Add t3 resistance fleet bonuses, some cap boosters, remote-repping and remote-energy transferring guardians and you'll have one invincible mother ****** of a hyperion.

Sure, numbers could be tweaked, and to maintain balance they'd be tweaked so that the effect makes virtually zero of an effect.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#9 - 2011-11-21 23:02:28 UTC
Somal Thunder wrote:

It is OP because it is easily exploitable. Lets take the Hyperion since you seem to think Abaddons aren't good candidates for examples. IIRC the Hype gets 6 low slots, 3 t2 eanms and 3 t2 lars. Add t3 resistance fleet bonuses, some cap boosters, remote-repping and remote-energy transferring guardians and you'll have one invincible mother ****** of a hyperion.

Sure, numbers could be tweaked, and to maintain balance they'd be tweaked so that the effect makes virtually zero of an effect.


Add what you say to *any* ship with a buffer, and it's OP too...
Better, add a carrier and you'll have one invincible mother ****** of a whatever !
Even more: add a fleet to an atron, and it became overpowered !

Be serious a moment please. If resistance is really the problem, you can add stacking penalty to it. And I took the Abaddon as example because it have resistance bonuses, which make it the BS where such a system would be the more impressive.
As I said, when you have logistic ships, why the need to repair BOTH cap AND shield/armor would be OP when you can just repair shield/armor with a passive buffer, leaving capacitor to actually fire with your guns ?
Somal Thunder
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#10 - 2011-11-22 00:36:13 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Somal Thunder wrote:

It is OP because it is easily exploitable. Lets take the Hyperion since you seem to think Abaddons aren't good candidates for examples. IIRC the Hype gets 6 low slots, 3 t2 eanms and 3 t2 lars. Add t3 resistance fleet bonuses, some cap boosters, remote-repping and remote-energy transferring guardians and you'll have one invincible mother ****** of a hyperion.

Sure, numbers could be tweaked, and to maintain balance they'd be tweaked so that the effect makes virtually zero of an effect.


Add what you say to *any* ship with a buffer, and it's OP too...
Better, add a carrier and you'll have one invincible mother ****** of a whatever !
Even more: add a fleet to an atron, and it became overpowered !

Be serious a moment please. If resistance is really the problem, you can add stacking penalty to it. And I took the Abaddon as example because it have resistance bonuses, which make it the BS where such a system would be the more impressive.
As I said, when you have logistic ships, why the need to repair BOTH cap AND shield/armor would be OP when you can just repair shield/armor with a passive buffer, leaving capacitor to actually fire with your guns ?


I now realize you are trolling, carry on sir.
Ismaus Taeus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-11-22 05:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ismaus Taeus
I'm actually intrigued by this idea.

Of course, the typical response from the EVE community would be it's OP ~ but realistically you're making more efficient use of your modules. And since you are using capacitor anyway why not make the modules 'smarter'? And after careful tweaking of the numbers, I am sure we can find a balance to improve shield/armor tanking.

Also, Bouth's english isn't the best. That doesn't make him a troll dammit. Be productive for once!