These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Passive vs. Active tanking.... your thoughts?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
DHB WildCat
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#1 - 2012-05-12 23:59:42 UTC
Ever since the days of JamesW's videos and the hp buff of years ago, passive tanking has become the norm and generally more powerful way to tank ships in eve. I have read a few posts and tried to think of ways that we may be able to give active tanking a little boost (pardon the pun) without completely braking the balance or game mechanics.

Ultimately I think this is the best way to do it, again without completely braking everything. We are not proposing stronger boosters / reps / or less cap used with active mods. Nothing of the sort. Instead we focused on the old saying that "Cap is life in EVE". So we propose that the only thing that changes is the amount all cap boosters take in the cargo hold. If we reduce the amount of space needed, everyone can carry more. This can be beneficial to both active and passive tanks, all turrets that require energy...... (hellcat pos bashers) ect.

Giving people a little bit more breathing room in terms of cap can alleviate a lot of issues or fears when using mods that require cap to function.


I guess Im asking what you all think. Is this a reasonable idea? Is it too much?

Thanks,

WildCat
Sup B1tches
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-05-13 01:09:06 UTC
Seen some friends fly around in active tanking Rokh's killing everything in sight, i too think shield booster and armour reppers could do with a touch up.

It's a lot more exciting than buffer tanking!

i think with the removal of tiers we may see specialised active tanked ships that will be quite good (brutix/cyclone)
Mfume Apocal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-05-13 11:09:02 UTC
It's reasonable, yeah.
Heun zero
MAYHEM BOYZ
#4 - 2012-05-13 11:17:02 UTC
I dont really see the problem. Active tanking is used for PvE and 1v1 or (maybe) small scale pvp, i'd say it's pretty much working as intended.
Death Toll007
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-05-13 11:17:47 UTC
+1 for developing the game with a buff rather than a nerf.

-DT
Captain Campion
Campion Corp.
#6 - 2012-05-13 11:43:41 UTC
I've been back and forth on this, I'll explain my current thinking.
The scenario I have in mind is roaming in a gang of 5-10 players and taking fairly even fights.

Around 2006 I was flying a Harbinger, I fit it with one plate and one rep. My justification was that I couldn't rep enough HP within a useful time to make the second rep worthwhile over a plate - but I did want to be able to repair between fights.

I've always held the opinion that passive shield tanking is superior to passive armor tanking because:
- automatic regeneration
- no speed reduction
- takes up mid slots, freeing lows for damage mods

I would choose dual rep tanking in situations where I'm likely to take damage from a small number of ships - such that I can repair their DPS long enough to kill some of them - such that I can repair their entire DPS and then fight under a cap-countdown. This situation is so rare I think it's not even worth discussing.

So.... where did the passive tank get me. Short answer... killed more.

I found myself in situations where my gang took a fight and I got called primary.
- I'm tackled
- I'm getting shot by their entire gang
- All the tank does is delay my death

The obvious response is... "but delaying your death means someone else isn't being shot".
- This is true, but fitting DPS instead removes enemies from the field which has the same effect.

I'm now flying Omen/Zealot/Harbinger, and on each I have two inertial stabilizers.
- If you're tackled you're dead regardless of tank
- If you can leave the fight quicker you're not tackled
- You can have better DPS than a tanked equivalent

TL/DR - You're dead if you get tackled and primaried regardless. So focus on escape instead.
Kaaeliaa
Tyrannos Sunset
#7 - 2012-05-13 13:37:56 UTC
DHB WildCat wrote:
Ever since the days of JamesW's videos and the hp buff of years ago, passive tanking has become the norm and generally more powerful way to tank ships in eve. I have read a few posts and tried to think of ways that we may be able to give active tanking a little boost (pardon the pun) without completely braking the balance or game mechanics.

Ultimately I think this is the best way to do it, again without completely braking everything. We are not proposing stronger boosters / reps / or less cap used with active mods. Nothing of the sort. Instead we focused on the old saying that "Cap is life in EVE". So we propose that the only thing that changes is the amount all cap boosters take in the cargo hold. If we reduce the amount of space needed, everyone can carry more. This can be beneficial to both active and passive tanks, all turrets that require energy...... (hellcat pos bashers) ect.

Giving people a little bit more breathing room in terms of cap can alleviate a lot of issues or fears when using mods that require cap to function.


I guess Im asking what you all think. Is this a reasonable idea? Is it too much?

Thanks,

WildCat


The problem I see with this is that buffing Cap Booster modules/charges will also buff RR (and a lot of other activities), which, in a lot of opinions, is a bit over-the-top already.

If you want to buff active tanking, buffing the active tanking modules or mechanics themselves is probably the more sensible idea. I believe the advent of buffer tanking in PvP came with the massive lag of fleet fights back in the day. By the time people noticed they were primaried and hit their active tanking modules, they wouldn't activate in time. It wasn't just because of huge alpha, although that has also played its part. Now that we have time dilation, that particular disadvantage of active tanking in fleet fights has been eliminated.

"Do not lift the veil. Do not show the door. Do not split the dream."
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-05-13 14:03:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunkwill Khashour
I'ld suggest to make overheating reppers/boosters much more powerfull both in terms of effect and in terms of heat damage taken.

But in general, the problem is that one can fit oversized buffers but not oversized boosters/reppers (with some exceptions) Moreover the dps being these days mean that a buffer offers much better time to live than an active module when talking about grid/cpu/cap needed (e.g. 1600 plate vs large repper grid use)
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#9 - 2012-05-13 14:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Kaaeliaa wrote:


The problem I see with this is that buffing Cap Booster modules/charges will also buff RR (and a lot of other activities), which, in a lot of opinions, is a bit over-the-top already.

I don't think the OPs idea is that bad, and I don't think RR is the real problem here (capchains). However, my Bhaalgorn would love smaller cap booster charges. Why not just decrease the amount of cap used by active tanking mods? It doesn't change too many issues unrelated to active tanking, except the benefit of having more cap available for other mods.

Quote:

If you want to buff active tanking, buffing the active tanking modules or mechanics themselves is probably the more sensible idea. I believe the advent of buffer tanking in PvP came with the massive lag of fleet fights back in the day. By the time people noticed they were primaried and hit their active tanking modules, they wouldn't activate in time. It wasn't just because of huge alpha, although that has also played its part. Now that we have time dilation, that particular disadvantage of active tanking in fleet fights has been eliminated.


Subcap local active tanking has never been used in large fleet fights because it tips over too easily with increasing numbers - a passive tank will always soak up X amount of damage, regardless of how many people are primarying the target.

Unless CCP would implement some kind of diminishing returns for primaries like a decrease in signature radius the more people are hitting the ship due to the signature becoming blurred because of all the explosions and interference, it will never beat a passive tank with RR in fleet battles and will never be viable - and even then it would be alphad before the effect kicks in.

I agree lag would have made it impossible anyway, but usually there's far too few ships necessary to primary one of it's class to push an unboosted active tank over to ever make it viable in bigger engagements.

In general, I'd agree that active tanks (especially armor) could use some love, but it's hard to accomplish. I don't think the OPs idea is bad at all, but I agree it would affect too many other factors.

edit: On a side note I'm quite interested how the new tanking mods will turn out - are they on Sisi yet?
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
wallenbergaren
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-05-13 14:22:54 UTC
I proposed this idea just the other day, so I definitely support it.
It basically doubles the endurance of active tankers, equivalent to the doubling of the EHP of buffer tanks years ago.
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-05-13 14:27:56 UTC
DHB WildCat wrote:
Ever since the days of JamesW's videos and the hp buff of years ago, passive tanking has become the norm and generally more powerful way to tank ships in eve. I have read a few posts and tried to think of ways that we may be able to give active tanking a little boost (pardon the pun) without completely braking the balance or game mechanics.

Ultimately I think this is the best way to do it, again without completely braking everything. We are not proposing stronger boosters / reps / or less cap used with active mods. Nothing of the sort. Instead we focused on the old saying that "Cap is life in EVE". So we propose that the only thing that changes is the amount all cap boosters take in the cargo hold. If we reduce the amount of space needed, everyone can carry more. This can be beneficial to both active and passive tanks, all turrets that require energy...... (hellcat pos bashers) ect.

Giving people a little bit more breathing room in terms of cap can alleviate a lot of issues or fears when using mods that require cap to function.


I guess Im asking what you all think. Is this a reasonable idea? Is it too much?

Thanks,

WildCat


Good thread. I don't have your experience DHB, but I do have an active tank fetish, so I have thought about it a lot recently. This is the best I have been able to come up with:

1. Fix active armor tank rigs so they have a penalty besides speed. The problem with active tanking now (where you should be more nimble because you have less buffer) is that the rigs sap your speed too. Passive armor rigs should keep the speed penalty.

2. Ship bonuses on ships that have them should be buffed to 10% instead of 7.5%. Perhaps the new incursus is a hint that this is coming.

3. Reduce the overheating damage caused/taken and/or module hit points for subcap reppers. For something that is supposed to give you longevity, they burn out too fast.

4. Reduce fitting requirements on armor reps. You need 2 to compete with shield reps, but on Gal ships it makes you downgrade guns to electrons usually. Just do it slightly so you can at least fit ions or other medium guns.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#12 - 2012-05-13 14:36:15 UTC
DHB WildCat wrote:
Ever since the days of JamesW's videos and the hp buff of years ago, passive tanking has become the norm and generally more powerful way to tank ships in eve. I have read a few posts and tried to think of ways that we may be able to give active tanking a little boost (pardon the pun) without completely braking the balance or game mechanics.

Ultimately I think this is the best way to do it, again without completely braking everything. We are not proposing stronger boosters / reps / or less cap used with active mods. Nothing of the sort. Instead we focused on the old saying that "Cap is life in EVE". So we propose that the only thing that changes is the amount all cap boosters take in the cargo hold. If we reduce the amount of space needed, everyone can carry more. This can be beneficial to both active and passive tanks, all turrets that require energy...... (hellcat pos bashers) ect.

Giving people a little bit more breathing room in terms of cap can alleviate a lot of issues or fears when using mods that require cap to function.


I guess Im asking what you all think. Is this a reasonable idea? Is it too much?

Thanks,

WildCat



Ultimately what we need is an environment that won't support med+ gangs (ie: gangs with more than 10-12 members). W-space is an example of the kind of environmental restriction that's needed, as wormholes have a mass limit. But that mass limit is still way over what's needed to favour the buffer/logi fleet model.

Imagine if CCP were to add a region or two of "lost" space with old, low-tech gates that had a low mass limit which quickly regenerated, allowing a small gang to move around, but hobbling and restricting larger ones. Unstable gas clouds that explode when too many ships are on grid. Magnetic anomalies that reduce targetting range and lock speed as more ships are in proximity.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Captain Campion
Campion Corp.
#13 - 2012-05-13 14:59:13 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Imagine if CCP were to add a region or two of "lost" space with old, low-tech gates that had a low mass limit which quickly regenerated, allowing a small gang to move around, but hobbling and restricting larger ones. Unstable gas clouds that explode when too many ships are on grid. Magnetic anomalies that reduce targetting range and lock speed as more ships are in proximity.


I like this idea.

Perhaps you go there and fly around to try and find salvagable artefacts - something you blow up, resulting in a bunch of small salvagable stuff - so it would take a while to salvage. But if you had a gang you could salvage it all.

And if you stumbled accross another gang you could fight them. Winner takes the spoils.

But the stuff isn't valuable and is unpredictably located - so it's not worth (or possible) for large alliance to monopolise it.
Lunkwill Khashour
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-05-13 15:24:34 UTC
Hrett wrote:


1. Fix active armor tank rigs so they have a penalty besides speed. The problem with active tanking now (where you should be more nimble because you have less buffer) is that the rigs sap your speed too. Passive armor rigs should keep the speed penalty.

2. Ship bonuses on ships that have them should be buffed to 10% instead of 7.5%. Perhaps the new incursus is a hint that this is coming.

3. Reduce the overheating damage caused/taken and/or module hit points for subcap reppers. For something that is supposed to give you longevity, they burn out too fast.

4. Reduce fitting requirements on armor reps. You need 2 to compete with shield reps, but on Gal ships it makes you downgrade guns to electrons usually. Just do it slightly so you can at least fit ions or other medium guns.


1. The speed penalty is ******** for all armor rigs. Change it to mass or agility penalty.
2. This will make active tanking only viable on the few ships with this specific bonus. The modules need work, not the ship boni.
3. No opinion
4. Agreed
Viribus
Bayraktar Warlord
Aurora. Australis
#15 - 2012-05-13 16:10:12 UTC
It still wouldn't solve the other major problems local tanks have of the ubiquity of neuts, the gains from plates/LSEs+trimarks/extenders being so great that an active tanked typically will be worn down/neuted out long before chewing through the huge EHP of a typical PVP ship, and the general fitting problems that active tanked ships have relative to buffer fits. One huge problem with an obvious solution is that, unlike active tanking rigs which are stacking penalized, trimarks and CDFEs become more effective the more you fit. Rigs disproportionately favour passive tanking.

I honestly don't think a cap booster size reduction would be that helpful toward making active tanking viable again, even ships that can fit a huge amount of cap boosters generally aren't flown without plugs and boosting alts because it's usually suicide otherwise. The Sacrilege, for example, can fit enough navy 800s for nearly 8 solid minutes of cap boosting. Most cruiser hulls can hold at least 4-6 minutes of cap boosters, and that still doesn't stop them from getting neuted in 90 seconds and getting dumpstered.

I did have a similar sort of idea for making it more practical to take active-tanked ships deep into nullsec or w-space, and that is to introduce cap boosters which, when used, eject into your cargohold and recharge over the course of 20-30 minutes. The recharge rate would be way too slow to be of any use in a fight (unless you're tanking people for half an hour straight for some reason) but would allow active-tanked or cap booster-dependent ships to hang out far away from a dockable station without having to go back 30 jumps for charges after every fight.

watch me be a scurb and get owned
Hrett
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2012-05-13 19:01:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
DHB WildCat wrote:
Ever since the days of JamesW's videos and the hp buff of years ago, passive tanking has become the norm and generally more powerful way to tank ships in eve. I have read a few posts and tried to think of ways that we may be able to give active tanking a little boost (pardon the pun) without completely braking the balance or game mechanics.

Ultimately I think this is the best way to do it, again without completely braking everything. We are not proposing stronger boosters / reps / or less cap used with active mods. Nothing of the sort. Instead we focused on the old saying that "Cap is life in EVE". So we propose that the only thing that changes is the amount all cap boosters take in the cargo hold. If we reduce the amount of space needed, everyone can carry more. This can be beneficial to both active and passive tanks, all turrets that require energy...... (hellcat pos bashers) ect.

Giving people a little bit more breathing room in terms of cap can alleviate a lot of issues or fears when using mods that require cap to function.


I guess Im asking what you all think. Is this a reasonable idea? Is it too much?

Thanks,

WildCat



Ultimately what we need is an environment that won't support med+ gangs (ie: gangs with more than 10-12 members). W-space is an example of the kind of environmental restriction that's needed, as wormholes have a mass limit. But that mass limit is still way over what's needed to favour the buffer/logi fleet model.

Imagine if CCP were to add a region or two of "lost" space with old, low-tech gates that had a low mass limit which quickly regenerated, allowing a small gang to move around, but hobbling and restricting larger ones. Unstable gas clouds that explode when too many ships are on grid. Magnetic anomalies that reduce targetting range and lock speed as more ships are in proximity.


It's called plexing in Faction Warfare. It's not a hard cap on the number of ships, but given the relatively small gangs in FW, it works.

spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP!
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#17 - 2012-05-13 20:29:32 UTC
That's a wrong way to do it, since cap is a good balancing factor and is precisely what makes things interesting. Instead of breaking active tanks (via removing its natural drawbacks) it's much better to improve passive tanking via introduction of proper penalties for using plates and SE's. Mobility comes to mind first.

I'll quote my CSM thread:

Quote:
Tanking in general is a very powerful ability. It doesn't matter what the ship itself does on a battlefield or how it's affected by other stuff, but it still dies by taking damage. One's ability to tank that damage is to come with proper cost. At the moment active tanking comes with: high CPU and grid requirements, high capacitor usage. On the other hand, current buffer tanking, while being very potent and popular (yet again, numbers speak for themselves), is hardly associated with any significant penalties. That is especially true for shield tanking, where increase of signature radius is simply a (bad) joke.

There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armour. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then. What is really cool, it's the fact this change hardly affects fleet warfare: the difference between everyone going at 1km/s and say 700-800 is pretty much non-existent. Great Nano Fix reduced velocity values by about the same margin, yet people still blob just fine.

I'm surely perfectly fine with CCP introducing instead some other proper penalties for buffer tanking, but these changes should then come in significant shifts - you can not just increase PG usage of pesky Large Shield Extenders by 20 MWs and consider it done. Nothing will change.

As for repairing/boosting values, these are fine as they are. Increasing them will just ruin small-scale PvP. We don't want to meet unbreakable monsters on each gate. The game is meant to be fun and dynamic, so the stuff must explode. Increasing tanking values just forces people to bring bigger numbers with them and that's it.


So, in general:
- active tank is mostly OK
- improve passive tank instead

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#18 - 2012-05-13 21:43:56 UTC
I don't think this is a bad change, but I also don't think it will do enough to make active tanking a more viable option over buffer tanking. I think making both shield and armor buffer tank modules (armor plates and shield extenders) decrease speed is a more viable option.

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

Timm Tachyon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-05-13 23:31:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Timm Tachyon
Given DHB´s other topic about not enough solo/small gang action. Is it really a good thing to make active local tanking worth it in fleet scenarios?

By that I don´t even mean the big sov-blobs. Just a 4 man gang shooting you. If you can mount a regular active tank on every non speciality ship that tanks that many ships for a good amount of time, wouldn´t it reach a state where ships would be generally unable to kill each other in 1vs1 or even 1 vs 2 situations? I mean other than dedicated neut boats. Especially smaller ships may then be generally unable to kill bigger ones.

Is that really a desirable scenario?

I mean who in a regular combat ship engages that solo hyperion/maelstrom nowadays? You usually wait for friends to engage because their rep bonus makes it unwise to attack alone. (Unless you have a special neut/ewar setup)
Misanthra
Alternative Enterprises
#20 - 2012-05-14 01:13:54 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
I don't think this is a bad change, but I also don't think it will do enough to make active tanking a more viable option over buffer tanking. I think making both shield and armor buffer tank modules (armor plates and shield extenders) decrease speed is a more viable option.



CCP proposed that idea and it died. It has 2 issues. One is it makes all tanks the same. Its nice to have some variety in the drawbacks of the tank styles. For say a lok pilot, it adds complexity to flying it as on armour roams his loki is a completely different ship from when run on shield roams Second issues is it doesn't really solve much.

System as now (with thronw out numbers since cba to eft actual ones.)

Plated armour vanilla buffer/passive fit top speed is 800 m/s. Already has his plate speed reduction
Shield tanked vanilla MSE/LSE, CDFE or resist rigs top speed 950 m/s


System where shield rigs dont do sig drawback but do speed reduction:

Plate armour takes a speed hit, probably more so since the same.
Shield tanker is going slower....but still faster than the armour plate boat, and keeps agility.

Your system (and one ccp was thinking about) , end resutl is the shield tanker kiter is still kiting. jsut at reduced speed. Bunch of code rewrites, in house balance tesitng, final testing on sisi and end of the day......that jaguar and that shield cane is still kitng.


12Next page