These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 1.5

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#741 - 2013-01-24 10:22:16 UTC
Captain Semper wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:

Burst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained for pvp.


Not realy

Burst>>>>sustained when you have <10-15 ppl at opposite fleet.


The only times sustained is better is when you get that ideal perfect "hero tank" situation.

Sadly that hardly ever happens.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#742 - 2013-01-24 10:29:00 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Burst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained for pvp.

Buffer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Active
You see, I also can put a lot of ">" and also without any explaination.

There is sustained tank.
There is burst tank.
Suddenly, there is yet another type of active tank, since recently. I'm talking about spooling-up tank, implemented in reactive hardner. That was something new indeed, my props to a person who invented it. By no means I can agree that it is inherently inferior to burst tanking. And I really think this type of active tanking suits to armor very well.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#743 - 2013-01-24 10:38:33 UTC
Rented wrote:
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
So what? That ASB becomes almost useless once it's out of charges. An armor tank will now easily outlast that and easily tank your 500 DPS BC. After these changes a myrmidon will be able to tank as well as a battleship used to. The hyperion will be able to deal and tank over 1.1k DPS, if you have good skills. Even better if you overload things, especially with that new rig.

Quit trying to make the ancillary armor repairer a godly module. CCP isn't stupid.

Holy crap, the man can't read. No wonder everything appears meaningless to him.

You appear to be under the impression that the AAR is better than an ASB in the long run. It isn't. If you could read and apply the slightest bit of math you would know this.

You also appear to be under the impression that hitpoints of armor are more valuable than hitpoints of shield, in any meaningful way, they aren't.

Indeed you appear to believe a cap-reliant AAR tank ship would have more lasting power than a cap-independant ASB ship, which is very amusing. I've got some bad news. The cap boosters you're running will empty your cargohold of charges just as fast and faster than an ASB will empty its cargohold of its charges. Not to mention an ASB ship inherently does more DPS by simple virtue of your 'so many more slots for armor tank' not having many, if any, space for damage modules.

Obviously the AAR is better, but that doesn't exclude it from being terrible.

- /facepalm



idk, to me it looks like even non-nanite-running LAAR+LAR II tank on a Hype is better than running a single XLASB on a Maelstrom. Sure, you can use both XLASB to get godmode tank, but if both your XLASBs are out of charges at the same time, it's game over.

And LAAR+LARII in heated godmode tanks more than 2*XLASB and Invuln overheated. And this is on RAH @ 15% resists.




.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#744 - 2013-01-24 10:50:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
I have a question, what about 1600mm Plates? Why are they excluded from the bonus? I personally never use anything smaller than those for plates.


The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus Smile
The 800mm and 200mm change is to help narrow that gap a bit (I know it doesn't narrow it all the way) and the 50mm change is there just to keep OCD people happy.

1600s still get the benefit of the new skill.


So this skill just waste of training time and a big nothing.
You think about it dear developer, pilots for the gap,the BS or BC pilots will use 800mm plates and they want to lose +10-15k armor (with bonuses) when they use 2 or 3 plates ??? Ridiculous developers.
Apostrof Ahashion
Doomheim
#745 - 2013-01-24 10:57:42 UTC
With 8 charges AMAR will repair 4275hp, with 8 uses MARII will repair 2560. And in one minute it takes AMAR to realod MARII will repair another 1600hp, or 4160 total, and this is assuming you have a ship with unlimited cap and run it constantly. So basically any time frame the so called burst module is plain better, even if you are completely ******** and start the repair cycle when its obvious that the fight will end soon and that you should just rep at 3/4.

Since anyone will obviously use this module instead of one repairer no matter what they do or want to accomplish, and it definitely wont make ppl reduce the number of reps (if i think that armor repairer will serve me better than anything else in that slot you can be sure i will think the same after you buff it). Since it is just a plain boost amount buff you acknowledge that the buff to reps is needed, why not just boost reps? This makes no sense at all, and all that burst tanking talk is bs.

New skill that reduces plate mass will hit new players. And also getting such a small buff to speed in practice does not solve anything, and will just force us to train another mediocre skill just because speed is that important. If you think plates are too heavy just reduce their mass.

The only problem with tanking in general is the stupidly powerful ASB and the fact that the signature radius, the main advantage of armor tanks, is less significant because mwd will boost it so much for both armor and shield that the difference will be too small to make a difference. Tweak that, dont introduce new modules and skills.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#746 - 2013-01-24 11:01:17 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
With 8 charges AMAR will repair 4275hp, with 8 uses MARII will repair 2560. And in one minute it takes AMAR to realod MARII will repair another 1600hp, or 4160 total, and this is assuming you have a ship with unlimited cap and run it constantly. So basically any time frame the so called burst module is plain better, even if you are completely ******** and start the repair cycle when its obvious that the fight will end soon and that you should just rep at 3/4.

Since anyone will obviously use this module instead of one repairer no matter what they do or want to accomplish, and it definitely wont make ppl reduce the number of reps (if i think that armor repairer will serve me better than anything else in that slot you can be sure i will think the same after you buff it). Since it is just a plain boost amount buff you acknowledge that the buff to reps is needed, why not just boost reps? This makes no sense at all, and all that burst tanking talk is bs.

New skill that reduces plate mass will hit new players. And also getting such a small buff to speed in practice does not solve anything, and will just force us to train another mediocre skill just because speed is that important. If you think plates are too heavy just reduce their mass.

The only problem with tanking in general is the stupidly powerful ASB and the fact that the signature radius, the main advantage of armor tanks, is less significant because mwd will boost it so much for both armor and shield that the difference will be too small to make a difference. Tweak that, dont introduce new modules and skills.
This.

Did have a similar post, but the forum ate it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#747 - 2013-01-24 11:29:26 UTC
Apostrof Ahashion wrote:
... This makes no sense at all, and all that burst tanking talk is bs....

In straight up brawls where incoming dps is nice and even throughout .... perhaps.

But when I go up again high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright.

Vanilla reps, particularly MAR/LAR could use some love though. Lowered grid requirement and an inch off cycle times, they should be better at prolonged repping with the AAR dumping most of its reps in those first critical 30-60s. If those numbers tell me anything then it is that the modifier on AAR should be increased and reload cycle extended not that the idea should be discarded.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#748 - 2013-01-24 11:43:56 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
But when I go up against high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright.

If you want burst tank - use shields. If you want armor - no burst then. Isnt it fair enough? Why you want everything homogenized?!
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#749 - 2013-01-24 11:53:07 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
But when I go up against high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright.

If you want burst tank - use shields. If you want armor - no burst then. Isnt it fair enough? Why you want everything homogenized?!

Yes, let me stick an ASB onto my slicer, Coercer, Retribution, etc. and try to pew Smile

If what you say was to be what CCP went for then armour ships would never fit active reps (dps/EHP ratio has been skewed over the years) and would only participate in blob-fests while solo/small-gang would be limited to a handful of ships at best with the rest of the shield ships being relegated to permanent mothballs/PvE .. talk about homogenization.

If you had ever tried pewing an ASB abusing ship using an armour boat as they currently stand you too would jump at the chance to get something that will at least make it an interesting fight.
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#750 - 2013-01-24 12:06:55 UTC

@Veshta Yoshida - as I see it:

Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Ideal fight for shield tanker: you jump upon a camp, kill some and run away till reinforcement arrives; you defo need burst.
Ideal fight for armor tanker: you start a fight and as it escalates, your tank becomes even harder; you need a good buffer to hold incoming DPS till reactive hardener (or whatever) spools up. Keeping this buffer in a form of charges inside armor reps is a bit sneaky, but IMO it is a fair compromise.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#751 - 2013-01-24 12:20:14 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:

So this skill just waste of training time and a big nothing.
You think about it dear developer, pilots for the gap,the BS or BC pilots will use 800mm plates and they want to lose +10-15k armor (with bonuses) when they use 2 or 3 plates ??? Ridiculous developers.


[Thorax, Neutron LSE]

Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Overdrive Injector System II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Large Shield Extender II
Stasis Webifier II
Warp Scrambler II

Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Neutron Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

2281 m/s
7.46 align
515 dps
18.2K EHP


[Thorax, new 800mm]

800mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I
Stasis Webifier II
Stasis Webifier II
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M

Medium Auxiliary Thrusters I
Medium Hybrid Burst Aerator I
Medium Ancillary Current Router I

2055 m/s
7.98 s align
457dps
18.4K EHP

Ok, so a second web is worth 226 m/s and 58 dps (agility and EHP are too close to each other to make difference), looks like the LSE fit still wins, right?

But what the new skill and mass reduction mean is that a plated dual web Thorax can sprint 2921 m/s (20km distance in <7 sec), which I find a rather acceptable figure considering the amount of range control it has inside 13km.

Does this plate buff make 1600mm fits somehow blazing fast? Does it make armor faster than shield? No, and it shouldn't, but it enables mobile light armor buffer fits which I find rather interesting due to midslot superiority.

1600mm plate is a Boss Module, it gives the biggest-ass pile of raw HP in game. I'm very happy to get just that skill-based reduction to it's mass without any EHP loss.

.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#752 - 2013-01-24 12:34:04 UTC
Both shield and armor tanking rigs are currently coming with a drawback soemhow nerfing their tanking : Less speed = more damages, high sig = more damages. What about now ?

Also, the fact that armor rep are applied at the end of the cycle is already balanced, as the shield absorbs the first (in the worst case) shot, (more like 2-3 shots usually). It leaves more time to react against an alpha and it's perfect as it is, no need to buff this.

My two isks.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#753 - 2013-01-24 12:46:14 UTC
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
But when I go up against high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright.

If you want burst tank - use shields. If you want armor - no burst then. Isnt it fair enough? Why you want everything homogenized?!


You know, I don't think I'd have a problem with this concept if they would just get rid of the stupid armor rep bonus on Gal ships.
GallowsCalibrator
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#754 - 2013-01-24 12:51:28 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
I have a question, what about 1600mm Plates? Why are they excluded from the bonus? I personally never use anything smaller than those for plates.


The fact that nobody uses anything other than 1600mm and 400mm plates is why they are excluded from the bonus Smile
The 800mm and 200mm change is to help narrow that gap a bit (I know it doesn't narrow it all the way) and the 50mm change is there just to keep OCD people happy.

1600s still get the benefit of the new skill.


So this skill just waste of training time and a big nothing.
You think about it dear developer, pilots for the gap,the BS or BC pilots will use 800mm plates and they want to lose +10-15k armor (with bonuses) when they use 2 or 3 plates ??? Ridiculous developers.


:Learn2read: 1600mm plates still benefit from the skill itself, they simply aren't getting a fixed mass adjustment beforehand.

Ugh, pubbies.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#755 - 2013-01-24 12:55:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikuno
I've tried to look at LAR/LAAR vs X-LASB and graph can be found here A New Graph http://i48.tinypic.com/2zs9pjr.jpg

edit :MY apologies, that was done on the basis of a T2 LAAR with a T2 LAR and it was pointed out that we'll likely only see the T1 version of the LAAR so the correct graph is http://i49.tinypic.com/117zi84.jpg which shows a T1LAAR + T2 LAR dual rep versus the X-LASB dual rep options. :edit

I've looked at running the LAAR at burst then reload, also running the LAAR in burst then at the lower 0.75rep level to simulate when the continuing tank might be needed as the dps is too high for the luxury of a reload. This should answer a lot of scenarios people have been asking for in the last couple of pages.

The armour tank is marginally better for a single window between 80s and 120s of usage at constant rates. Otherwise on dual setups the shields win out the rest of the time.

It's pointless trying to compare the MAR/MAAR with the X-LASB as they're totally different leagues. If XLASB continue to be able to be fitted to BC or cruisers then the AAR is going to be a very second rate system at that level.

The 2 systems are close but the armor always comes out worst. Add to this the issue of neuting affecting only AARs, the much higher fitting requirements or AARs, local rep still suffering poorly in comparison to resists and this is not going to fix anything properly but it will be a rather poor bandaid.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#756 - 2013-01-24 12:55:42 UTC
Sig difference matters only as long as no MWD is used. MWD sig bloom is so significant, that it completely equalizes the damage shield and armor tanks take in the most typical real combat situations. All weapons all the way up to capital size hit an MWDing armor ship no problems.

Only speed difference remains, not as a meaningful factor in tracking, but as range control factor.

It is true that these plate buffs really buff AB fits, but AB is not a common option on BCs, and afaik rarely used even on cruisers outside AHAC gangs.

So even though it might appear that armor tanks are somehow now less penalized, it actually just balances the overall situation due to MWD sig bloom.

.
Mund Richard
#757 - 2013-01-24 13:02:47 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Oversized shield mods are the main reason why active armor tanking is underpowered in comparison:

Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer: 60 armor/sec, 4320 armor per reload.
L-Ancillary Shield Booster: 97.5 shield/sec, 3510 total shield per reload.

Let me try another angle (math errors may be present):

LAAR: 600*2,25= 1350 rep/cycle, 120/sec rep before the first reload, 8 "charges" so 8*11,25= 90sec before a reload is needed , 8*1350=10800 rep before recharge.
At worst (end of reload cycle) it reps 10800/(60+90) = 72/sec.

XLASB: 980 boost/cycle, 196/sec boost before the first reload, 9 cycles so 45sec before a reload is needed, and with navy 400 one gets 9*980=8820 rep before reload.
At worst, 8820/(45+60)= 84 rep/sec

Why the LAAR is better:
  • It costs less CPU
  • Running it without charges is a viable option, though at a horrible efficiency.

    • Why the XLASB is better:
  • It costs less PG
  • Thus it can fit on BC
  • Is heals simply more with or without reload calculated.
  • Much better before the first reload, still better even in the worst-case scenarios
  • Running it without charges is an option, though at horrible results to your cap unless you have a crazy cap source
  • Can fit more than one

    • The "option" of running a LAAR isquestionable. I see - for now - three reasons to do it:
    1) You will not live long enough to reload. In this case, you have a T1 repper that has only 62,5% of the efficiency of a meta 4 LAR, 40 rep/sec, which on a battleship it's something like the shield peak regen. Probably not what will make you survive a serious fight.
    2) You ran out of charges. In which case you are pretty much likely doomed, only slightly less so in the long run than with an ASB.
    3) You want an "armor plate" without using trimarks or getting a mass addition (just like how XLASB can be seen as an "1600mm Shield extender"). The cost is a bit of CPU and 1425 PG. In which case it works somewhat less than twice as well than the plate (10800/6000=80%).

    "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
    Garviel Tarrant
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #758 - 2013-01-24 13:07:23 UTC
    Sinzor Aumer wrote:
    Garviel Tarrant wrote:
    Burst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sustained for pvp.

    Buffer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Active
    You see, I also can put a lot of ">" and also without any explaination.

    There is sustained tank.
    There is burst tank.
    Suddenly, there is yet another type of active tank, since recently. I'm talking about spooling-up tank, implemented in reactive hardner. That was something new indeed, my props to a person who invented it. By no means I can agree that it is inherently inferior to burst tanking. And I really think this type of active tanking suits to armor very well.



    Try to outbrawl a tripple rep myrm in a buffer harb/cane, tell me how that works out for you.

    BYDI recruitment closed-ish

    Omnathious Deninard
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #759 - 2013-01-24 13:16:08 UTC
    It would be nice to see armor tanking turned into actual sustained tanking, by constantly repairing a small amount of damage every second. The current repair per second would not need to change nor would the cap usage per second (at least on SARs).
    Then MARs and LARs would need a buff in the HP repaired.

    If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
    Apostrof Ahashion
    Doomheim
    #760 - 2013-01-24 13:26:49 UTC
    Veshta Yoshida wrote:

    But when I go up again high dps targets like blasters I don't need repairs nice and even, I need it bloody well now in the hopes that the boost lasts long enough for me to have gained the range necessary to mitigate damage, have capped the target out or killed him outright.

    Vanilla reps, particularly MAR/LAR could use some love though. Lowered grid requirement and an inch off cycle times, they should be better at prolonged repping with the AAR dumping most of its reps in those first critical 30-60s. If those numbers tell me anything then it is that the modifier on AAR should be increased and reload cycle extended not that the idea should be discarded.


    So what they need to do is balance it so that at some point MARII starts repping more. If that time frame becomes less than your average fight lenght no one will use AMAR, if it is longer everyone will use it. Its a terribly hard thing to balance, especially considering that there is already a perfect, simple and well balanced overheating in the game for your burst tanking needs until you drive your blaster boat in their face. And even if they somehow manage to strike a perfect balance in timeframe when MARII starts outrepping AMAR it will come at a cost of a big reload time and small number of charges making it nothing more than "oh crap" button.

    And if your buffer cant hold out for like 9 sec it takes MARII to kick in your biting more than you can chew. If you ignore the stupidly op ASB (wich was needed to free some slots and make active shield tanking in pvp viable, just not in this op state), 2xMARII will in each 20 sec repair about 100 more than LSB+SBAII, a fair compromise for slower kick in and a little bigger cap usage.

    Overheating is enough, and specialized pvp repair modules will just create a huge balance issue while changing nothing in the way of actual gameplay or introducing new and fun mechanics. Just killing ASB will balance active tanking and tweaking mwd sig bloom should be the first step balancing buffer tanking.