These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Shield tanking vs Armor tanking (fixs?)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alara IonStorm
#21 - 2012-11-10 21:11:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Dorian Wylde wrote:

You're having trouble fitting an oversized battleship class module on a cruiser. Something tells me CCP isn't going to be sympathetic. You can barely fit an XL shield booster on a cruiser too, that's the same situation here.

The 800mm Plate is terrible so everyone fits 1600mm. I am not saying make oversized modules easy to fit, I am saying make it impossible to fit and make the proper sized plates good to take over.

Dorian Wylde wrote:

Armor has an oversized passive module (1600 plate), shield has oversized active module (XL booster)

Your list that everyone knows seems to think I want to change any of that. I want to get rid of oversized modules.

Dorian Wylde wrote:

There's more examples, this is all I care to list for right now. Discussing balance is great, just make sure you're looking at the big picture. CCP doesn't nerf or buff single items in a vaccuum, so talking like they will is pointless.

Never asked them to buff single items. I am asking them to update sizes because while they were once good, all the Ship HP and Fitting Buffs as well as the addition of rig buffer has made half these things obsolete and half oversized.

The entire system needs to weeded out.
Denuo Secus
#22 - 2012-11-10 21:37:47 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
....The fact a Drake can permanently omni-tank 700DPS or more while being immune to neuts is a testament to that...


While I agree armor tanking needs some love, this statement is bullshit. Tell me one thing such a Drake can do except tanking. "Tanking is no role in combat".
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#23 - 2012-11-10 23:05:13 UTC
Who cares what else it can do? We're talking about shield tank vs. armour tank. Show me an armour tanked BC that can tank that much DPS, let alone one that can do it while ignoring cap.

This isn't a discussion of why an over-tanked Drake sucks, it's a discussion about why the two schools of tanking are imbalanced.

Oh god.
Denuo Secus
#24 - 2012-11-10 23:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Riot Girl wrote:
Who cares what else it can do? We're talking about shield tank vs. armour tank. Show me an armour tanked BC that can tank that much DPS, let alone one that can do it while ignoring cap.

This isn't a discussion of why an over-tanked Drake sucks, it's a discussion about why the two schools of tanking are imbalanced.


It makes no sense to view ship abilities in such a synthetical manner. What if the Drake (or shield tanks as a whole) are balanced exactly around this aspect? You can sacrifice all low and med slots to create a silly tank. But such a ship serves no role in PvP. It's useless and that's why not viable as argumentation in a discussion about tanking balance. As soon as you want to achieve something with said Drake (dealing damage?) your tank isn't that stellar suddenly.

Having said that, I agree armor tanking is not really appealing at the moment. Especially active armor tanking.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#25 - 2012-11-11 00:01:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
The point is, shield tanking has that option available. Shield tanking has more versatility and more applications to fill a wider variety of roles. While a Drake tanked like that would not do well in PvP unless it was being used as a bait ship, it can solo C3s and Level 4s quite comfortably, albeit slowly. That's something equivalent armour tanked ships cannot do.

This is all without even going into detail about the imbalance of modules...

Oh god.
Perihelion Olenard
#26 - 2012-11-11 00:28:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
It disturbs me that some people are getting exited about putting shield buffers on the new thorax and vexor. This is in spite of the fact that their base shields are much less than the base armor, have less mids than caldari/minmatar to do it, and will absorb less damage than them. It is also disturbing that people would rather shield tank a brutix, myrmidon, and hyperion than use their repair bonus and armor tank them.
Denuo Secus
#27 - 2012-11-11 00:47:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Denuo Secus
Riot Girl wrote:
The point is, shield tanking has that option available. Shield tanking has more versatility and more applications to fill a wider variety of roles. While a Drake tanked like that would not do well in PvP unless it was being used as a bait ship, it can solo C3s and Level 4s quite comfortably, albeit slowly. That's something equivalent armour tanked ships cannot do.

This is all without even going into detail about the imbalance of modules...


EVE isn't balanced around PvE. Shield will always be better in PvE since all you need here is tank&gank.

Bait works with tackle...if you fit tackle on a bait Drake you gimp your tank. Heavily armor tanked ships perform better in the bait role: Maller, Prophecy...because they can fit full tackle without sacrificing tank.

@Versatility: same could be said about usually armor tanked ships with lows full of damage, tracking and speed mods. That way you get a very hard hitting and fast glass cannon. This cannot be done in any shield tanking ship, they simply lack low slots. So armor tanking ships are more versatile in terms of speed and damage.

What I want to say...both tanking styles are different in terms of slot allocation. This leads to extreme fitting possibilities. Nothing wrong with that. I for one like this diversity in EVE. When fitted in an unorthodox way shield tanking ships can be turned into low damage, passive tanking monsters while armor tanking ships can do the opposite. In a perfect balanced EVE-world both would meet in the middle.

I just don't get why people moan about the passive Drake (a niche fitting, useless in PvP) and want it nerfed just because armor tanking is subpar at the moment. True, shield tanking (buffer, ASB) is better in the current meta. Why not change armor tanking so it works instead of making working shield ships bad as well?
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2012-11-11 00:54:17 UTC
1. Reduce the CPU use of tracking computers
2. Reduce PG need of armor repairers a lot, making oversized armor reppers a thing
3. Change the speed penalty into a agility penalty, 100mn AB cruisers is popular for a good reason, let armor be that but with more reasonable numbers
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#29 - 2012-11-11 03:29:02 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Who cares what else it can do? We're talking about shield tank vs. armour tank. Show me an armour tanked BC that can tank that much DPS, let alone one that can do it while ignoring cap.

This isn't a discussion of why an over-tanked Drake sucks, it's a discussion about why the two schools of tanking are imbalanced.


Some cruiser and Battlecruiser sized armor tanks.

Devoter: 771 omni-damage, cap stable tank. T2 modules only.
Eos: 745 omni-damage, cap stable tank. T2 only.
Legion: 1574 omni-damage, cap stable tank. T2 only.
Damnation: 824 omni-damage, cap stable tank. T2 only.
Proteus: 1408 omni-damage, cap stable tank. T2 only.

Problem is that they're completely useless, just like that Drake you were talking about. There is a reason this game isn't balanced around stupid fits, and that's because no one uses them, and the effect on normal fits that people do use would be silly.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#30 - 2012-11-11 07:12:06 UTC
Denuo Secus wrote:
I just don't get why people moan about the passive Drake (a niche fitting, useless in PvP) and want it nerfed just because armor tanking is subpar at the moment. True, shield tanking (buffer, ASB) is better in the current meta. Why not change armor tanking so it works instead of making working shield ships bad as well?


You make valid points. I don't care about nerfing shield tanking but I think it might be wiser than buffing armour tanking to avoid numbers escalating in other areas, such as DPS buffs.

Oh god.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#31 - 2012-11-11 07:26:50 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Some cruiser and Battlecruiser sized armor tanks.

You've kind of missed the point. Apart from these ships being T2+3 ships, none of them ignore capacitor. It might be possible to keep a Legion running through neuts with a combination of batteries and vampires though. I don't really want to turn this argument into Drake vs Legion.

Oh god.
Graff Spee
Lonercorp
#32 - 2012-11-11 08:08:44 UTC
Maybe the problem is that everyone wants a fast gang, to fly with their soon to be nerfed hurricanes. /Sarcasm.
Seriously, I think the problem here is actually the soon to be nerfed ASB. Once that's fixed, the only reason to use shields is speed. I greatly suspect that if they cannot balance this out, lowering shield resists slightly, or adding some kind of new armour module might actually fix the issue. I'd hate to say it, but the possibility of removing passive shield recharge comes to mind as a possible solution.
Then again, what do I know - I'm just throwing ideas out there.
Blitzalpha Khurelem
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-11-11 09:34:26 UTC

maybe upgrading the hull and shield system should be separated from the pvp type mods

maybe a 2nd set of slots in mid/lows is needed that only fit armor and shield mods or a skill that might add the extra slots (for armor or shield modules only) is needed

that way ... a pvp'er will normally use the same amount of slots as a mission runner with the bonus that fitting pvp gear wont gimp their tank

... regards o/
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#34 - 2012-11-11 09:38:43 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Paikis wrote:
Some cruiser and Battlecruiser sized armor tanks.

You've kind of missed the point. Apart from these ships being T2+3 ships, none of them ignore capacitor. It might be possible to keep a Legion running through neuts with a combination of batteries and vampires though. I don't really want to turn this argument into Drake vs Legion.


That's the point, your challenge was pointless, as its impossible to have an armour tank that can repair ANYTHING without using capacitor. And your fit is pointless on that Drake anyway, no one would ever use that fit in PvP. I'm surprised you didn't go full ****** just fit officer modules. You may as well have, it would be just as (un)likely to be used, and your argument is just as absurd and pointless.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#35 - 2012-11-11 09:47:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Riot Girl
Paikis wrote:
That's the point, your challenge was pointless, as its impossible to have an armour tank that can repair ANYTHING without using capacitor.

Good job using my point to argue that I have no point... Well at least you're showing some semblance of understanding, even if it is somewhat misguided.

Oh god.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#36 - 2012-11-11 10:41:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Paikis
Riot Girl wrote:
I have no point.


Glad we agree. /thread
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#37 - 2012-11-11 10:44:14 UTC
Congratulations.

Oh god.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#38 - 2012-11-11 14:08:32 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Also, crystals don't work on capitals. Slaves do.


Only on Amarr capital ships! *rimshot*

IMO, ASB's are broken only because of the whole "multiple oversized, okies!" that goes on. The marginal improvement to combat capability of a single oversized ASB is that you free a slot usually used by a capacitor booster for an EWAR mod, and then get to simplify your "omg buttans!" attention demand while PVPing - which is why active shield tanking sucks so much; balancing cap, capacitor booster cycles, shield booster cycles, shooting, piloting, drones...its a serious PITA to fly an active tanked Cyclone.

If you could make armour repairers capless and run on scrap metal, as I suggested in features and ideas, and make oversize versions, then people would be complaining about armour ASBs being OTT.

There is a balance somewhere between a faction active shield tank and an ASB where you can manage your cap, other stuffs, and tank reasonably. I'm not sure what the mechanism is, but it sure ain't twin XLASBs, and it sure aint horrible cap constraints that cripple Cyclones (and make Maelstroms tricky without blue pills).

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Cartheron Crust
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#39 - 2012-11-11 15:40:43 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
1. Reduce the CPU use of tracking computers
2. Reduce PG need of armor repairers a lot, making oversized armor reppers a thing
3. Change the speed penalty into a agility penalty, 100mn AB cruisers is popular for a good reason, let armor be that but with more reasonable numbers


All good ideas.
Escomboli
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-11-11 16:32:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Escomboli
Hasn't CCP already stated they recognize there is a pretty big problem with the differences in shield/armor tanking, and are looking at ways to revamp it?