These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#1261 - 2013-02-08 14:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Denmark
Pinky Denmark wrote:
comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay?


Whatever you do it's not a good idea to compare armor tanking and shield tanking directly based on the Kronos vs the Golem.

Kronos/Golem are the same ship class and overall pretty much balanced against eachother, however they are not supposed to have identical tank, or identical anything for that matter... Just because the Golem tanks perhaps 30% better than the Kronos it doesn't necesarily mean all shield tanking is 30% better. Thats all I said and my opinion won't change on that...

Between those two ships the Kronos has several other nice advantages making up for the smaller tank in some situations. Just look at the latest tournaments. You should really find other examples of why you think armor tanking is worse than shield tanking.

On the normal scale the effeciency of both seems pretty balanced. Shield tankers always complained about not having slots for tackle and armor tankers always complained about not having enough slots for damage mods. So lets focus on the things that seemingly pull in favour of shield tanking :

  • Armor plates increasing mass making them slower
  • Armor rigs reducing velocity enabling shield fleets to kite way too easy
  • Tracking Enhancers having a way too powerfull range bonus making Tracking Computers unattractive
  • Some ships having huge amount of dps making damage mods and tracking enhancers very important
  • Active shield having no delay, while armo has to wait for end of cycle
  • Being able to overload Invulnerability Fields, but not EANM


PS. And never forget active tankers get more tackle/ewar while traditionally having more lowslots available than shield tankers have medslots.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1262 - 2013-02-08 14:16:24 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls.


Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion....



Did you wake up and smoke crack today?

I'm not sure whether your racial level allows it, but you should be comparing that to proliferation of nanos, damage mods and TEs.


When was the last time you went roaming in something that wasn't a dual alt boosted nighthawk? Do you not notice that everything in lowsec right now has a damp, TD, or web fit in its mids?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1263 - 2013-02-08 14:24:40 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls.


Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion....



Did you wake up and smoke crack today?

I'm not sure whether your racial level allows it, but you should be comparing that to proliferation of nanos, damage mods and TEs.


When was the last time you went roaming in something that wasn't a dual alt boosted nighthawk? Do you not notice that everything in lowsec right now has a damp, TD, or web fit in its mids?

I don't give autographs on Friday, sorry. Queue up like the rest of the unknown rabble, more so when you want to sign such a tome of nonsense.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Mund Richard
#1264 - 2013-02-08 14:39:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Hence, active shield tanking is a choice between efficiency and burst : you can reach the efficiency of an active armor tank, but to the price of tanking ability. Active armor on its side have less burst, but more ways to increase it -- easier to fit multiple repers ; more rigs, and notably one increasing both efficiency AND burst, a rig slot SBA in some ways.

Seem balanced to me ; both are mostly ineffective anyway (mostly, because *sometimes*, they aren't). I'm not talking about faction modules balance though.

Finaly, until now, there wasn't a lot of reason to fly armor tanked ship indeed, because, IMO, of speed superiority of shield ships. Though, with this rebalance, that could change. After these, a x/6/6 ship could benefit from an active armor tank with heavy EWAR capacities, because now he will be able to counter the strength of his ennemy instead of waiting for him to decide about how the engagement will fare.

"Easier to fit multiple reps for armor":
You NEED to fit multiple reps to catch up to a single oversized rep +SBA.
And that's without mentioning how that oversized +SBA can be ASB. Or double oversided ASB...

"more rigs, notably increasing both efficiency AND burst":
a) Shield can improve efficiency and burst via resists better, as their overall resist is already stronger as soon as you get to T2 using 2 modules, and only gets better after that.
b) Sure, armor can delegate efficiency to rigs while shield uses mids, but T1 nano pump: +15% repair. T2 SBA:+36%
Only after allocating all three rigs to boost amount are you better than a single T2 midslot module.

"Finaly, until now, there wasn't a lot of reason to fly armor tanked ship indeed"
Not quite sure if there's any better reason now.
AAR still doesn't compare to ASB in my eyes.
Plate still has a worse drawback than Extenders as long as MWD is on (and if the enemy mounts a plate against a shield kiters, the MWD stay on...).

"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.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1265 - 2013-02-08 15:01:47 UTC
If you are so hung up on efficiency with no regard to base cap/regen of the various hulls, then why not try to come up with solutions to your perceived problem?

You say that a booster + SBA exceeds what dual reps can do. So add a 20% extra 'shield mod' cap use to SBA's .. solves immediate booster eff. issue AND the supposed problem of invulns suddenly being god modules.
You say triple rigs are needed to compete. So tweak the rig benefits slightly and/or convince Fozzie to put some extra hours into the heating rig originally planned as part of the active armour push (original proposal would break most if not all active armour scenarios so was rightfully pulled).
Perihelion Olenard
#1266 - 2013-02-08 15:21:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Mund Richard wrote:

"Easier to fit multiple reps for armor":
You NEED to fit multiple reps to catch up to a single oversized rep +SBA.
And that's without mentioning how that oversized +SBA can be ASB.

"more rigs, notably increasing both efficiency AND burst":
a) Shield can improve efficiency and burst via resists better, as their overall resist is already stronger as soon as you get to T2 using 2 modules, and only gets better after that.
b) Sure, armor can delegate efficiency to rigs while shield uses mids, but T1 nano pump: +15% repair. T2 SBA:+36%
Only after allocating all three rigs to boost amount are you better than a single T2 midslot module.

"Finaly, until now, there wasn't a lot of reason to fly armor tanked ship indeed"
Not quite sure if there's any better reason now.
AAR still doesn't compare to ASB in my eyes.
Plate still has a worse drawback than Extenders as long as MWD is on (and if the enemy mounts a plate against a shield kiters, the MWD stay on...).

I'm not qute sure why you're complaining about using rigs to improve armor repairer efficiency. Shield ships have to sacrifice a med slot to improve theirs in the form of a shield boost amplifier while they have no rigs to improve booster efficiency. They do technically have one, but it lowers the amount of capacitor the booster uses and doesn't increase the amount boosted. Sure, that means they fit resist rigs, but we have the same resist rigs for armor and we can fit resistance modules to the low slots that do better than their resist rigs. It's just a different style of tanking.

The problem is how much the armor repairer repairs, not the style of tanking. It could stand to repair a little more.
Mund Richard
#1267 - 2013-02-08 15:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
If you are so hung up on efficiency with no regard to base cap/regen of the various hulls, then why not try to come up with solutions to your perceived problem?

You say that a booster + SBA exceeds what dual reps can do. So add a 20% extra 'shield mod' cap use to SBA's .. solves immediate booster eff. issue AND the supposed problem of invulns suddenly being god modules.
You say triple rigs are needed to compete. So tweak the rig benefits slightly and/or convince Fozzie to put some extra hours into the heating rig originally planned as part of the active armour push (original proposal would break most if not all active armour scenarios so was rightfully pulled).

The Invuln's percived being OPness I'd rather solve by adding a T2 (and maybe more) Reactive Armor Hardeners (and I did ask Fozzie about it already, he answered with "maybe later").
SBA as a means of balancing invulns wouldn't affect those opting out on their use afterwards (remote rep). A drawback of cap usage wouldn't affect (dual) ASB fits.

Using heat as a way to balance armor and shield is not something I see as good, so that particular rig I'm happy Fozzie and the gang recalled for more tuning.

Juggling the armor rig against SBA...
My original point there was not that the armor rig is weak, but that it's not outright superior to anything the shield users (don't) have.
Not sure how brutal it would be, if they were +20% each. Possibly instantly offsetting over-sizing of shield modules with a dual (and not trippleRoll) setup using two rigs.
And then on a Proteus, two T2 and a T1 variant... It would have an x2.825 efficience on a single module.


I fully accept your critic of me QQ-ing but not giving any suggestions in my post there.
However, I did call for re-doing faction/deadspace armor and shield modules and adding a T2 RAH quite a few times before (and also with toning the RAH skill to not increase cap cost), and those would be a good place to start with IMHO.

Perihelion Olenard wrote:
I'm not qute sure why you're complaining about using rigs to improve armor repairer efficiency. Shield ships have to sacrifice a med slot to improve theirs in the form of a shield boost amplifier while they have no rigs to improve booster efficiency.

It wasn't meant to be a complaint, just as a counter to what you said that time.
Like you say now, different style of tanking.

"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.
Perihelion Olenard
#1268 - 2013-02-08 15:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Mund Richard wrote:
...
Well, if I were to complain about it, it would be more in line with how for a BS, a single T2 +rep rig costs more than a Gist X-Type SBA.

The isk cost of tech 2 rigs in general have absolutely nothing to do with one form of tanking being superior to the other.
Mund Richard
#1269 - 2013-02-08 15:37:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
The isk cost of tech 2 rigs in general have absolutely nothing to do with one form of tanking being superior to the other.
Right.
Shouldn't have edited to include that last bit.

"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.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1270 - 2013-02-08 16:10:09 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls.


Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion....



Did you wake up and smoke crack today?

I'm not sure whether your racial level allows it, but you should be comparing that to proliferation of nanos, damage mods and TEs.


When was the last time you went roaming in something that wasn't a dual alt boosted nighthawk? Do you not notice that everything in lowsec right now has a damp, TD, or web fit in its mids?

I don't give autographs on Friday, sorry. Queue up like the rest of the unknown rabble, more so when you want to sign such a tome of nonsense.


Right, so you admit to being wrong. I like the growth in you Fon, first you openly admit to being a racist, now you can even admit when you're wrong.

Eventually we'll work around to that thing where you can't play without every crutch possible but I guess baby steps are baby steps.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#1271 - 2013-02-08 17:03:07 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

Right, so you admit to being wrong. I like the growth in you Fon, first you openly admit to being a racist, now you can even admit when you're wrong.

Yeah, implying your IQ is above 60 was my fault. I have never thought it is that hard to compare how popular various modules are, though.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#1272 - 2013-02-08 17:47:44 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
g your IQ is above 60 was my fault. I have never thought it is that hard to compare how popular various modules are, though.


So, the guy saying unbonused webs and ewar is unpopular just called somebody else dumb.....next you'll say offgrid boosters aren't that popular.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#1273 - 2013-02-08 18:07:39 UTC
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:
Most people never used to max afterburner either. They changed that now though....

They did what now? You are not by any chance referring to the oversized AB phenomenon where the saved cap is noticeable .. because I'll be damned if I (as a declared anti-oversizer) see any reason whatsoever to train that pointless skill higher than 3-4.

CCP did not do that, we players did in our never ending pursuit of min-max bliss.

As for the rest: That is the beauty of active armour, it is not a simpletons chosen method of tanking as it requires considerations and choices far beyond that of active shield .. absolute nightmare if one get hit with latency spikes, but with everything running smoothly one (read: I) get a lot more satisfaction out of juggling cap/armour/hull/transversal than just cap which is all active shield amounts to if you ask me and the main reason why I too consider the ASB flawed .. then again, could just be my Amarr hulls with neut bonuses talking Big smile

Previously the AB skill increased the duration of afterburners by 10% per level, reducing tactical options due to the long duration. Now they changed it to decrease duration and cap need so it comes out to the same cap/second as before, but you have increased tactical decisions due to the frequency you can pulse it (durations at V are half of what they used to be) and you can use your afterburner as you see fit.

Same thing applies to armour reps. You can use them more tactically, although they didn't implement the cap reduction per rank, but due to the decreased duration you can rep whenever you want, and when You need the health you can just run it constantly.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1274 - 2013-02-08 22:05:10 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
"Easier to fit multiple reps for armor":
You NEED to fit multiple reps to catch up to a single oversized rep +SBA.
And that's without mentioning how that oversized +SBA can be ASB. Or double oversided ASB...

"more rigs, notably increasing both efficiency AND burst":
a) Shield can improve efficiency and burst via resists better, as their overall resist is already stronger as soon as you get to T2 using 2 modules, and only gets better after that.
b) Sure, armor can delegate efficiency to rigs while shield uses mids, but T1 nano pump: +15% repair. T2 SBA:+36%
Only after allocating all three rigs to boost amount are you better than a single T2 midslot module.

"Finaly, until now, there wasn't a lot of reason to fly armor tanked ship indeed"
Not quite sure if there's any better reason now.
AAR still doesn't compare to ASB in my eyes.
Plate still has a worse drawback than Extenders as long as MWD is on (and if the enemy mounts a plate against a shield kiters, the MWD stay on...).

Comparing nanopump to SBA is a bad idea (modules they modify are really different) : just look at my numbers to see how they compare in real EVE. And to evaluate balance between shield and armor, keep in mind that armor ship often have one more low slot than shield tank ship have mid slots. Remember too that a pvp ship need a prop mod and a warp disruptor, further decreasing its slot count. Hence why the SBA can't be compared to rigs the way you do it. A shield ship with SB+SBA won't have high resist, and you need a triple rep armor ship to see comparable resist profile ; hence a shield tanking ship with high resist AND SBA is very rare (need 6 med slots for this) -- BTW, once you have 2 resist mods, you often are at your maximum, and shield and armor are almost equal at this level.

As for efficiency of standard active tanking, that is another problem. As almost nothing have been done to fix them (both, standard shield and armor active tanking are in the same state, and the numbers are not that different), they are both still pretty bad. ASB is the savior of active shield tanking, and AAR shall be the one of active armor tanking.

Comparing current active armor tanking to ASB though is not useful, as ASB and AAR are clearly supposed to be THE modules to use for pvp.
Galatea Galilei
Summa Universalia
#1275 - 2013-02-08 23:07:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Galatea Galilei
Roime wrote:
It still looks like triple rep is required to get any mileage out of active armor tank on BC/BC level. This means five slots just for the repairers, then you use all other lows and rig slots to buff them on a competitive level.

Managing 5 modules and the heat generated my them, losing all damage and having even more isk in your full cargohold just to run a tank that compares to 4-slot XLASB tank but with a web feels like a rather harsh tradeoff.

Or you can just fit a passive shield tank that actually heals more HP per second caplessly without you even having to bother to activate it. And throw three drone damage amps on while you're at it...

I'm glad they changed the title here from Armor Tank 2.0, but 1.5 is still a bit ambitious. Call it Armor Tanking 1.0.1 and recognize the proposed changes here do almost nothing to close the gap towards making an armor tank even competitive. It will still be the case that a ship with a bonus to active armor tanking can fit a better tank by completely ignoring the hull bonus and tossing on a passive shield tank. Shield Myrmidon will still have a superior tank to armor Myrm, highlighting just how useless its hull bonus is. It provides a significant buff to a game mechanic so poor that even with the buff, it can't compete.

Honestly, I don't care if armor tanking is ever made competitive. I just wish the Myrm could have its utterly useless hull bonus replaced with something useful... but that's a different thread. (Alas, comments to that effect in that thread get referred over here, with the explanation that the changes here will make those bonuses actually useful, despite the fact that none of the proposed changes here actually do.)
Funky Lazers
Funk Freakers
#1276 - 2013-02-08 23:34:41 UTC
Well I just accepted the fact if you want to do PvE efficiently forget about three words: Active Armor Tanking.

Damn lol, I was so full of hope that I could finally fit my Kronos with some armor tank that I didn't use for like 3 years.

Whatever.
Mund Richard
#1277 - 2013-02-09 01:07:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
...

The nanopump to SBA I only continued since someone else mentioned it.
One more low for armor doesn't sound too bad when tripple rep fits are flown against double booster ones.
2 mids are the bare minimum for a shield tank (prop+disruptor), while the slower armor traditionally goes prop+web+scram+cap booster.
Lows both need for damage mods
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Comparing current active armor tanking to ASB though is not useful, as ASB and AAR are clearly supposed to be THE modules to use for pvp.

Ok, but how does the AAR bring me a sudden increase in how good I can be with armor tanking using a BC/BS?
Can only mount one, still uses cap, is only something like 70% better than a T2 while loaded, more than 40% worse without (or at least I hope my napkin math after midnight and correcting exams is not off), takes a minute to reload (during which it is 100% worse). Still need to pair it with at least one more rep, still need one or two cap booster with it.

At the introduction of the ASB, everyone and their grandmother flew almost all Gallente ships with it, for it simply just worked better on a non-tankbonused ship with comparable med and low amount.
Still works quite well.
I don't remember anyone brewing up masterplans for using the AAR on an unbonused (traditionally armor buffered, not going so far as to say caldari because that would be silly) hull.
Galatea Galilei wrote:
Or you can just fit a passive shield tank that actually heals more HP per second caplessly without you even having to bother to activate it. And throw three drone damage amps on while you're at it...

Ofc that only works on a few ships well.
On the other hand, for PvE I stopped using armor myrms and went passive shield since felt so much more forgiving, and nothing planned in this thread changes that.
Funky Lazers wrote:
Well I just accepted the fact if you want to do PvE efficiently forget about three words: Active Armor.

Or go spider domi Roll

"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.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1278 - 2013-02-09 01:35:09 UTC
What people don't see with the AAR is all the possibilities the module open. Basicaly, you have a 2 in 1 repair mod for the length of a fiight and active tank rig won't kill your speed anymore (this is insane : 15% more speed !) Oh, and some grid is freed too now.

That may look like small things, but that may have huge consequences. You need one less slot to active armor tank (damage ? TE ? more tank ? more speed ?), and you are as fast as any other ship. I can't imagine how to not see the difference that will make.
Mund Richard
#1279 - 2013-02-09 02:49:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
What people don't see with the AAR is all the possibilities the module open. Basicaly, you have a 2 in 1 repair mod for the length of a fiight and active tank rig won't kill your speed anymore (this is insane : 15% more speed !) Oh, and some grid is freed too now.

That may look like small things, but that may have huge consequences. You need one less slot to active armor tank (damage ? TE ? more tank ? more speed ?), and you are as fast as any other ship. I can't imagine how to not see the difference that will make.

Oh, I do see how active tanking rigs not killing my speed helps.
Grid freed up due to the -20/10% is also nice.
So far this is not mainly due to the new module.

Now continuing onto the AAR.
On frig level it's good enough that Fozzie felt the Incursus must be nerfed. Can't really say I disagree.

BC level...
What kind of fight are you looking at, where the MAAR will be still in it's prime when it's over?
One less module? That ofc decreases your tank even while the AAR is in it's prime. I'm assuming dual-rep, Prop, Cap Booster.
Thus Ions at best (haven't checked exact numbers though). Anything with two webs will try and keep you close to scram range.
Anything designed to kite will keep you outside or fail at kiting.
Without a TE that will hurt quite a bit.
With a TE I'm not sure of your dps to take them down fast enough.
(Or they might still TD you just to keep the incoming dps low enough until your AAR runs out.)
Fast enough being somewhere around 2 mins, where a T2 MAR would catch up to the MAAR (apart from in fitting and cap cost), taking over if you don't reload afterwards.
If you reload... well, you aren't that much better off either way.

And possibly my main grief:
I was considering all this on a Brutix.
ASBs are good enough for any ship to try, even without tanking bonuses. Heck, even traditionally armor-tanked ones!
Can't quite see unbonused hulls trying out active tanking just because of the AAR.
Well, that's mainly due to the cap cost I suppose, but still.
If for any reason I can see, it would be the speed gain over trimark.

"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.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1280 - 2013-02-09 08:01:56 UTC
How exactly do you want to balance it? From the description with the "lack of TE" it sounds like you want to use BC vs AF as a base-line Smile
There will still and should always be some matchups that are utterly impossible to pull off .. that was one of the reason I think why CCP were so heavy handed with the Hurricane, it simply had no real weakness and would happily munch anything in its path.

Duration of the uber-repper is 8x cycle currently;
- Frigates are well covered with fights being fast and furious and rarely going beyond the one minute mark if that .. cap management/warfare will be alpha/omega (Rifter to have a renaissance?). Would in this sentence like to reiterate my desire for more Punisher cap Smile
- Cruiser are well-off with the 70-80s duration, could be a tad longer though, say ten cycles.
- Battlecruisers are the odd ducks out, mostly due to their place in the hierarchy. Near BS damage levels with only cruiser+ tanks makes the eight cycles entirely too low .. if I were the one to make the call I'd give them an extra role bonus to be able to fit two ASB/AAR (would require an ASB nerf to disallow multiple on other hulls).
NOTE: Similar role bonus could be attached to the T3 active tanking sub-system.
- BS are so rarely used in the scenarios the AAR is designed for (solo/small-G) that it is very hard for me to comment on. AAR use will be a niche thing on BS level I should think .. used primarily for travel to make it back to gates (more speed + equivalent of buffer tank EHP) .. BS are fleet animals which is fine by me.

The main grief points towards tweaking ASB's (and TE's) and not buffing AAR's. The fact that an armour boat would even consider using that horrible thing is proof enough if you ask me .. creating an environment where shield hulls start seeing benefits in using AAR's is not even (I should hope) on the table.