These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Ship balancing] Why active tank bonuses are plain worse than resist bonuses
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2012-11-10 14:24:40 UTC
Paul Maken wrote:
I'm not sure why the correct math hasn't appeared here yet. It's not a matter of 37.5% versus 25%.

A 25% resist bonus means that you take 3/4 as much damage. The inverse is that you have 4/3 as much EHP. That's 33.33%
Considering it's 1/3rd more EHP AND 1/3rd more repping, it's approximately equivalent to a 77.78% increase in rep amount. So it would not be unreasonable to DOUBLE the rep bonus and put it at 15% per skill level.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2012-11-10 14:34:14 UTC
Cosmoes wrote:
7.5% bonus to resistance of active resistance modules
and on the resistance ships you could put.
5% bonus to resistance of passive resistance modules
eg. a t1 shield hardener on a maelstrom used to give 50% resistance now gives 68.75% resists

This doesn't do much at all for the frigates or for some setups, it also has some potential for abuse with high end modules eg. a estamals hardener would give 88% resists
If you calculate it differently, you can arrive at 77.5% resist from an Estamel's hardener with level 5 @ 7.5% per level. But that's too much. It should be 5% per level max for both passive and active. This would land a t1 hardener at 62.5%, a t2 hardener at 66.25%, and an Estamel's hardener at 73%. To get this figure, multiply the added resistance % by the amount the module does not cover, ie a 64% module does not cover 36%. 25% of 36 is 9, and 9+64=73.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#103 - 2012-11-10 15:50:10 UTC
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#104 - 2012-11-10 16:06:36 UTC
Mr John Smith wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Different ships for different styles of play. Normalizing everything into fleet boats is beyond boring, especially when we have hundreds upon hundreds of ships. Hyperion should remain active, megathron should remain the fleet ganker.


Hyperion with resist bonuses could still be used as an active tanker, just saying.



Infact it has already been shown that resist bonus is as good for active tanking as a rep bonus.



Holding onto a crappy bonus because we're all afraid of homogenization is just silly. It's time we admitted that a rep bonus as a primary bonus on a tech 1 ship that will only ever have 2 bonuses just doesn't work as well as ships with a resist bonus. You can try and argue that this is how it should be but you're wrong to do so. Because at the end of the day all you've done is doom a good ship to mediocrity because you feel that the game needs "flavor".


First and foremost, a 37.5% to rep amount is better than a 25% to resistance for active tanking. Sure the resistance bonus is more versatile and provides a longer duration of survivability if incoming dps is > than your tank however simply stating that a 25% resistance bonus is as good as a 37.5% to rep amount is simply not true and in terms of high level heated tanks can be literally hundreds of dps difference between the tanks.

That being said... an increase from 37.5% to rep, to 50% at level 5 as I and many many many others have suggested is significantly superior to a 25% resistance bonus for active tanking. This increase in niche performance coupled with a re-evaluation of slot distribution I strongly believe would make up for the difference in versatility a resistance bonus would grant.

As for me being wrong... Hardly, the Hyperion is already an extremely deadly ship capable of tanking several BS with links, reasonable mods, and exiles running. W/o links, tanking a gank BS or a couple BCs is also a non issue. A modest increase in grid (allowing for ions + 2x heavy cap injectors instead of ions + 1x heavy and 1x medium) as well as 12.5% increase to rep power would make it even more capable.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-11-10 16:12:17 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.
You don't seem to understand how stacking penalties work. Increasing the boost amount is NOT better than increasing resists for active local tank, and this can be demonstrated conclusively.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#106 - 2012-11-10 16:17:26 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.


It is my understanding that ship resistance bonuses are not effected by stacking penalties.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2012-11-10 16:22:02 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
It is my understanding that ship resistance bonuses are not effected by stacking penalties.
All ship skill bonuses are unaffected by stacking penalty.
Due to the way resist bonuses work, each level becomes progressively more valuable while each level of a rep bonus becomes progressively less useful.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#108 - 2012-11-10 16:39:46 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

Due to the way resist bonuses work, each level becomes progressively more valuable while each level of a rep bonus becomes progressively less useful.


This is 100% correct and at lvl 5, the difference in active tank between a ship with resistances and rep bonus is minimal however does exist. The need for rep bonus to be increased to 10% per level (or maybe more as you highlighted) is unquestionable.
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#109 - 2012-11-11 14:17:03 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.


It is my understanding that ship resistance bonuses are not effected by stacking penalties.



Yes you are right. Its not necessarilly a penalty. But if you put an invuln on a ship with ship resists you will not decrease the incoming dps as much as if you put one on a ship without the ship resists.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#110 - 2012-11-11 14:19:59 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.
You don't seem to understand how stacking penalties work. Increasing the boost amount is NOT better than increasing resists for active local tank, and this can be demonstrated conclusively.



Look at the tank you can get cyclone fully buffed with crystals and compare it to a drake or ferox.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#111 - 2012-11-11 18:48:03 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.
You don't seem to understand how stacking penalties work. Increasing the boost amount is NOT better than increasing resists for active local tank, and this can be demonstrated conclusively.



Look at the tank you can get cyclone fully buffed with crystals and compare it to a drake or ferox.


Drakes and Feroxes get more out of it. What is your point exactly?

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#112 - 2012-11-11 19:24:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Cearain
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.
You don't seem to understand how stacking penalties work. Increasing the boost amount is NOT better than increasing resists for active local tank, and this can be demonstrated conclusively.



Look at the tank you can get cyclone fully buffed with crystals and compare it to a drake or ferox.


Drakes and Feroxes get more out of it. What is your point exactly?



all level 5 i am showing the cyclone with an overloaded,large asb, overloaded t2 invul, with crystals and standard blue pill and 2 t1 shield resist mods tanks 960. Same set up with ferox tanks 840.

Swap the large asb for an xl asb and you get cyclone 2366 and ferox 2046.

Edit: even without the crystals and blue pill the cyclone tanks more.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#113 - 2012-11-11 22:05:17 UTC
I started reading your post, couldn't really grasp what you were trying to say.

At no point did I see you clearly define what you intended by active tanked bonuses, although resist bonuses was somewhat obvious. Nowhere did I see how this had much relevance to the suggestion. Your post was put together in a very hard to understand manner.

Either way, active tanks generally suck; active armor tanks suck more. The reason for this is simple; it is because a Resist bonus tank provides buffer and prevents incoming DPS from killing the ship in a short period of time. Nowhere outside of PvE is the continued repair of tank in modest increments relevant over extended durations.

PvP is fast, with incoming DPS generally obliterating any form of repair to the point of making it completely worthless.

If you repair 144 HP/s actual and have 10% resist on incoming 600 DPS with a 12000 HP buffer, then you have a net loss of 600*0.9 - 144 = 396 DPS, which applied to a 12000 HP buffer, will reduce that buffer to 0 in 12000/396 = 30.3 seconds, which means you have resisted a total of 30.3*600 = 18180 damage before entering either armor or structure.

If you take the same tank and apply a 66% resist to it, then you reduce incoming DPS on that resist by 600*0.66 = 396 DPS, leaving 600 - 396 = 204 DPS applied to a 12000 HP Buffer, which will give you 12000/204 = 58.8 seconds before you enter either armor or structure. That gives you a total of 600*58.8 = 35280 damage resisted during that period.

The best armor and shield tanks combine resist bonuses with repair rates, which results in potentially longer perids of time before destruction, and even the possibility of outlasting your opponents. This is obvious.

What I don't get, is what you are trying to say here. Did you want the Repair bonus of certain ships increased? I think that was your intent, but it wasn't obvious from your lengthy document. I don't know what else to call it, though apparently someone grasped it in part at least.

The problem isn't with the ship bonuses, it is with the repair units. Shield rep little in short cycles and armor reps lots in long cycles. Armor repping cycle is nearly useless because it usually doesn't get to see more than one cycle before the ship is destroyed. Shield is generally useless because it only reps tiny and insignificant amounts.

Neither reps enough to matter, and both chew Capacitor like it's going out of style. Both require multiple modules to rep anything near effective for PvE, let alone PvP. It has nothing to do with the ship.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Mr John Smith
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#114 - 2012-11-12 11:50:04 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:

First and foremost, a 37.5% to rep amount is better than a 25% to resistance for active tanking. Sure the resistance bonus is more versatile and provides a longer duration of survivability if incoming dps is > than your tank however simply stating that a 25% resistance bonus is as good as a 37.5% to rep amount is simply not true and in terms of high level heated tanks can be literally hundreds of dps difference between the tanks.

That being said... an increase from 37.5% to rep, to 50% at level 5 as I and many many many others have suggested is significantly superior to a 25% resistance bonus for active tanking. This increase in niche performance coupled with a re-evaluation of slot distribution I strongly believe would make up for the difference in versatility a resistance bonus would grant.

As for me being wrong... Hardly, the Hyperion is already an extremely deadly ship capable of tanking several BS with links, reasonable mods, and exiles running. W/o links, tanking a gank BS or a couple BCs is also a non issue. A modest increase in grid (allowing for ions + 2x heavy cap injectors instead of ions + 1x heavy and 1x medium) as well as 12.5% increase to rep power would make it even more capable.



Refer back to the first post where the math is.

A 37.5% rep bonus is roughly 3% more effective for active tanking than a 25% resist bonus. I will grant you that for active tanking the rep bonus is slightly better. However, once you take everything else into consideration the resist bonus clearly pulls ahead. It gives a better buffer, increases the value of remote reps in addition to a good local tank.

Increasing the rep bonus from 37.5% to 50% would make the ship incredibly powerful for small fights without actually increasing its value for any other type of game-play. It would be a pve or solo ship, never seeing use outside of these small nich uses. Doesn't it make more sense to change the bonus to something more versatile, making the ship more desirable for more roles, than buffing it up to almost crazy levels just so it retains its unique flavour of crap?


I never said you were wrong, I said the idea of leaving the ship in a bad place was wrong. It is a good ship, like other ships with the repair bonus, but its not the ship it should be. Shield ships with repair bonuses are now only finding favour because of the new ASB, a flavour of the month module that CCP are already looking at for nerf's. When that happens, and it will, ships like the Cyclone and Maelstrom will be right back where they started.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#115 - 2012-11-12 12:16:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
Cearain wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Cearain wrote:
Bring your ferox or drake I'll bring my cyclone.

The reason increasing the boost amount is better for active local tank is because of stacking penalties on resists.
You don't seem to understand how stacking penalties work. Increasing the boost amount is NOT better than increasing resists for active local tank, and this can be demonstrated conclusively.



Look at the tank you can get cyclone fully buffed with crystals and compare it to a drake or ferox.


Drakes and Feroxes get more out of it. What is your point exactly?



all level 5 i am showing the cyclone with an overloaded,large asb, overloaded t2 invul, with crystals and standard blue pill and 2 t1 shield resist mods tanks 960. Same set up with ferox tanks 840.

Swap the large asb for an xl asb and you get cyclone 2366 and ferox 2046.

Edit: even without the crystals and blue pill the cyclone tanks more.


[Cyclone, Crazy Tank]
Damage Control II
[empty low slots]

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

[empty high slots]

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I

+ Full Crystal Set, + Sansha Gnome Implant + Gnome Shield Operation 6 Implant = 2813 EHP/s with a 41k Buffer

[Ferox, Crazy Tank]
Damage Control II
[empty low slots]

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

[empty high slots]

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I

+ Full Crystal Set, + Sansha Gnome Implant + Gnome Shield Operation 6 Implant = 2757 EHP/s with a 52k Buffer

2813 - 2757 = 56
52k - 41k = 11k
11k / 56 = 196

The cyclone only has a better tank in situations where the XLASB is active for over 196 seconds. (ie, never)

This is thanks to the resist bonus of the Ferox providing it with a larger buffer on top of providing it with similar boost rates. Hence me saying it's imbalanced.

Edit: And of course, my point is more about the resist ships being able to fulfull more roles than the active ships, not about how well either can active tank.

As demonstrated above - and said in X previous posts - resist bonuses allow the same things active bonuses do and more. It's not about what active ships can do, but about what they can't do.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#116 - 2012-11-12 12:25:23 UTC
Mars Theran wrote:
I started reading your post, couldn't really grasp what you were trying to say.

At no point did I see you clearly define what you intended by active tanked bonuses, although resist bonuses was somewhat obvious. Nowhere did I see how this had much relevance to the suggestion. Your post was put together in a very hard to understand manner.

Either way, active tanks generally suck; active armor tanks suck more. The reason for this is simple; it is because a Resist bonus tank provides buffer and prevents incoming DPS from killing the ship in a short period of time. Nowhere outside of PvE is the continued repair of tank in modest increments relevant over extended durations.

PvP is fast, with incoming DPS generally obliterating any form of repair to the point of making it completely worthless.

If you repair 144 HP/s actual and have 10% resist on incoming 600 DPS with a 12000 HP buffer, then you have a net loss of 600*0.9 - 144 = 396 DPS, which applied to a 12000 HP buffer, will reduce that buffer to 0 in 12000/396 = 30.3 seconds, which means you have resisted a total of 30.3*600 = 18180 damage before entering either armor or structure.

If you take the same tank and apply a 66% resist to it, then you reduce incoming DPS on that resist by 600*0.66 = 396 DPS, leaving 600 - 396 = 204 DPS applied to a 12000 HP Buffer, which will give you 12000/204 = 58.8 seconds before you enter either armor or structure. That gives you a total of 600*58.8 = 35280 damage resisted during that period.

The best armor and shield tanks combine resist bonuses with repair rates, which results in potentially longer perids of time before destruction, and even the possibility of outlasting your opponents. This is obvious.

What I don't get, is what you are trying to say here. Did you want the Repair bonus of certain ships increased? I think that was your intent, but it wasn't obvious from your lengthy document. I don't know what else to call it, though apparently someone grasped it in part at least.

The problem isn't with the ship bonuses, it is with the repair units. Shield rep little in short cycles and armor reps lots in long cycles. Armor repping cycle is nearly useless because it usually doesn't get to see more than one cycle before the ship is destroyed. Shield is generally useless because it only reps tiny and insignificant amounts.

Neither reps enough to matter, and both chew Capacitor like it's going out of style. Both require multiple modules to rep anything near effective for PvE, let alone PvP. It has nothing to do with the ship.


I'll see if I can clean it up to make it easier to follow when I'll have more time. Can't do that right now, sorry.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#117 - 2012-11-12 14:49:11 UTC
Active armor rep bonus are completely useless, rather a pain in the arse stick to your ship because it's a total useless bonus.

Active shield rep bonus are completely OP at sub cap level.
Those are huge improvements for tank, despite comments about cap efficiency, because those benefit the best from the differences in between T2/Meta4 shield boosters and faction/dead space ones or even ASB's that so dramatically unbalanced compared with active armor reps.

Slaves or Crystals should not be considered as an argument of balance and are at the beginning of so many misunderstandings about shields/armor tanking leading to this silliness balance a-la-wow mega paladin monday uber DK tuesday super hunter thursday and so on.

Well we don't have paladins or Dk's, even less hunters and their pet but we have for sure OP Dead Space Shield modules and ASBs on one side vs *cough* ridiculous dead space armor reps and an even sillier module named Reactive Armor Hardener thrown at armor tanking players face with a skill book written in used toilets paper. Lol you meanies !!

One of the possible solutions indeed is to give all armor ships +5% resist that would indeed increase reps effectiveness and plates/physical EHP but would then make all ships alike.
Wouldn't be wise neither to give all amarrian ships a +5 resist per leve +whatever bonus and give gallente an increased base resist but less bonus.

As it stands armor tanking needs a complete overhaul regarding Gallente since Amarrian +5% resist bonus proves now for years this kind of armor tanking is solid and doesn't need much of changes but rather profit from some modules improvements.


Nice thread and ideas thou, thank you for sharing.


brb
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#118 - 2012-11-12 15:05:21 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Seranova Farreach wrote:
i will say a resounding no. ships with resist bonus are more pvp based for buffer, whilst boost bonus are not buffer nor used in pvp (unless stupidly rich with emphasis on stupid.. unless its a hawk :p )


I think you didn't get the point.

Resist bonussed ships can do everything the active tank bonussed ships can do, but not the other way around.


sure they can or are you mad that shield ships can stand up to armor gang pirates now?

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#119 - 2012-11-12 15:11:37 UTC
[Cyclone, Crazy Tank]
Damage Control II
[empty low slots]

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

[empty high slots]

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I

+ Full Crystal Set, + Sansha Gnome Implant + Gnome Shield Operation 6 Implant = 2813 EHP/s with a 41k Buffer

[Ferox, Crazy Tank]
Damage Control II
[empty low slots]

10MN MicroWarpdrive II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
EM Ward Field II

[empty high slots]

Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I

+ Full Crystal Set, + Sansha Gnome Implant + Gnome Shield Operation 6 Implant = 2757 EHP/s with a 52k Buffer

2813 - 2757 = 56
52k - 41k = 11k
11k / 56 = 196

The cyclone only has a better tank in situations where the XLASB is active for over 196 seconds. (ie, never)

This is thanks to the resist bonus of the Ferox providing it with a larger buffer on top of providing it with similar boost rates. Hence me saying it's imbalanced.

Edit: And of course, my point is more about the resist ships being able to fulfull more roles than the active ships, not about how well either can active tank.

As demonstrated above - and said in X previous posts - resist bonuses allow the same things active bonuses do and more. It's not about what active ships can do, but about what they can't do.[/quote]

eft warrior much? i dont think i know any one who would risk 3bill of implants in a t1 hull such as a ferox or cyclone not even low grade ones while they MAY use Strong blue pill for 30% boost. ps im nto osure sansha gnome is even available to the masses yet as its either a, not in game yet or b, only drops from vanguards or somethign stupid like that.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#120 - 2012-11-12 15:45:15 UTC
Seranova Farreach wrote:


sure they can or are you mad that shield ships can stand up to armor gang pirates now?


What the hell does armor pirate fleets vs shield ships have to do with this discussion, like at all... Roll

As shown numerous times in this thread... At lvl 5 (only way to compare) the difference in active tanks between ships with resistance vs rep bonuses is real however exceedingly small... This thread is about solutions to address the obvious problem which in turn is where most of the debate is moving.

Some people believe that the removal of the active bonus for something more "generalized" is the right approach. Some players, such as myself believe that the solution is to specifically increase the bonus to rep amount on specialized ships. It comes down to niche vs generalization which in it's current form unquestionably favors the resistance bonus.