These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1521 - 2013-03-03 15:09:34 UTC
Nothing in these changes affects those three points in any way.



.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1522 - 2013-03-03 19:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Veshta Yoshida wrote:

EFT's heat calculations are usually fairly accurate, so going by them with repairer situated in the middle of the rack with two mods on either side:
T2 can be heated for a total of 40 cycles before off-lining, repairing 352 hp/cycle, 2816 hp in 8 cycles.
MAAR can be heated for a total of 50 cycles (T1 stats > T2 stats) before off-lining, repairing 594 hp/cycle, 4752 hp in 8 cycles.

Beauty of using the mediums is that the numbers all line up with 8 almost being a constant, as those eight cycles also equate to the AAR reload time (61s, close enough).
By the time the T2 burns out after its 40 cycles (5 minutes) it will have repped 14080 hp at a steady pace throughout while the MAAR at the same point in time will have repped for "only" 24 cycles for a total of 14256 hp in three bursts .. leaving it 26 more heated cycles (not counting the cooling happening when its reloading mind you!).

Bottom line: Initial test results from SiSi were bang on when they came back saying that the AAR is like designed to work in conjunction with a plate as the buffer carries it through the reload cycles.

Seems to me that Ytterbium♥Fozzie did their homework pretty damn well.
.

So....
What your numbers are telling me is that provided you stop overheating before you burn the module out, you actually rep more by overheating a T2.

Because you stopped at the start of the reload cycle for the AAR with your numbers there meaning for the next 60 seconds there are no further reps from the MAAR. Meaning you also have a comparable minute to repair the MAR II. Or continue with unheated MAR II repping which is still pretty good.
And in another few minutes, you also have to stop to repair the MAAR.

So sure, the MAAR can compete...... But what these numbers are saying is that the MAAR is no better for anything over 60 seconds than simply overheating a MAR II and pulsing it to repair as needed/allowed by the fight. & is actually less efficient at doing so. So the MAAR is basically an un-needed module that achieves no real change with it's current statistic, as it's burst tank is barely better than a T2 Rep even over a short sprint.

To make the AAR actually viable it needs a significant increase in it's burst tank from where it is now. (Or some other kind of benefit like zero cap, or some other buffs)
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1523 - 2013-03-03 20:12:42 UTC
Roime wrote:
Nothing in these changes affects those three points in any way.

So you believe.

Shield ships never needed a web for example, so why does active armor ship would need it ? That is one example of the biased hypothesis you make.

Like a lot of people, you won't see how good these armor changes can be until they make armor tank completely OP, because you are biased, believing armor is bad and these changes useless whereas you don't even tested them.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#1524 - 2013-03-03 20:51:25 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
...Because you stopped at the start of the reload cycle for the AAR with your numbers there meaning for the next 60 seconds there are no further reps from the MAAR. Meaning you also have a comparable minute to repair the MAR II. Or continue with unheated MAR II repping which is still pretty good....

The output of the heated MAAR is such that the heated T2 won't catch up to it until it has approx. 15s left on its first reload, after which it pulls ahead quite rapidly .. so of that minute you speak of the first 3/4 is spent lagging behind .. end result is that the T2 either needs a companion rep or a plate that is larger than that needed for the MAAR.
T2 never achieves the equivalent of a full reload cycle's worth of an advantage before it burns out so unless you deliberately choose to do the tally at the end of the reload cycles, the MAAR will come out ahead in all comparisons.

Sure it could be more, but it does the job of offering almost double rep amount compared to existing options in a comparable price range so the burst component is covered .. would hate to have one being even better as the cap drain would have to be higher as well and active reps are already crippling on my Amarr hulls.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1525 - 2013-03-04 04:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
...Because you stopped at the start of the reload cycle for the AAR with your numbers there meaning for the next 60 seconds there are no further reps from the MAAR. Meaning you also have a comparable minute to repair the MAR II. Or continue with unheated MAR II repping which is still pretty good....

The output of the heated MAAR is such that the heated T2 won't catch up to it until it has approx. 15s left on its first reload, after which it pulls ahead quite rapidly .. so of that minute you speak of the first 3/4 is spent lagging behind .. end result is that the T2 either needs a companion rep or a plate that is larger than that needed for the MAAR.
T2 never achieves the equivalent of a full reload cycle's worth of an advantage before it burns out so unless you deliberately choose to do the tally at the end of the reload cycles, the MAAR will come out ahead in all comparisons.

Sure it could be more, but it does the job of offering almost double rep amount compared to existing options in a comparable price range so the burst component is covered .. would hate to have one being even better as the cap drain would have to be higher as well and active reps are already crippling on my Amarr hulls.

You don't need a full reload cycle worth as with good paste skills it takes less than a full cycle to repair. & you are going to have to repair the heated MAAR at some point also. Which puts the Heated MAAR cleanly behind at that point. Though I will admit on a 1v1 if you get to that point it's odd. But in a messy fight between several fleets, the T2 is a clearly superior option due to it's ability to turn heat off and still be effective repping, then overheat at the click of the button for on demand burst tanking.
If you are taking enough incoming damage that the Heated T2 can't cope for the first 60 seconds, you also have just died during your MAAR reload cycle, because you have 0 rep for 60 seconds, so if some rep + 60 second isn't enough, 0 rep + 60 seconds is even less.

I'm sure there is some perfect DPS vs Rep vs Buffer balance which makes it all work out perfectly for the MAAR to have a slight edge. But the point is that the edge the MAAR has is so tiny that it's not worth creating an entirely new module for at this point. Right now if you need that edge you could just run with an overheated deadspace rep instead.

The MAAR just doesn't have enough 'burst' to stand out, it's just a varient on the overheat mechanic effectivly.
(P.S. 1.69 is not 'almost double' in any real world debate, assuming you are overheating both for that & only talking the first 60 seconds)
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1526 - 2013-03-04 08:30:13 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Roime wrote:
Nothing in these changes affects those three points in any way.

So you believe.

Shield ships never needed a web for example, so why does active armor ship would need it ? That is one example of the biased hypothesis you make.

Like a lot of people, you won't see how good these armor changes can be until they make armor tank completely OP, because you are biased, believing armor is bad and these changes useless whereas you don't even tested them.


No, you're the believer here, not a single fact has been hurt in writing any of your posts.

If you really want to participate, start by these.

Quote:
1) As others have said, active armour tanking never works with one rep on anything above frigate classes, so yes active armour tanking does imply 2 or more repairers.

2) Even with 1 repairer you will normally require a cap booster. Bear in mind that the ships you're talking about are amarr and gallente both of which have cap greedy weapons.

3) A web is still a must. Running the mwd to keep up is madness from a cap perspective and blows your sig up to the point that nothing can miss you; a web removes the sig bloom issue and is much kinder to your cap hence it remains compulsory for gallente blaster ships and strongly advisable for amarr ships.


Do you think shield tanking is OP now?

.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1527 - 2013-03-05 00:22:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
Ok, let's go about these "facts" :

1) As others have said, active armour tanking never works with one rep on anything above frigate classes, so yes active armour tanking does imply 2 or more repairers.

Now, that could really work, because MAAR, for example, give you a little less hp in 8 cycles than a 1600mm plates without the agility drawback.
==> possible paradigm shift you don't even want to consider.

2) Even with 1 repairer you will normally require a cap booster. Bear in mind that the ships you're talking about are amarr and gallente both of which have cap greedy weapons.

According to my previous answer, you only need 8 MAAR cycles of cap, which is 8*160 = 1280 GJ in 61 to 72 seconds, something a cruiser with a nos can afford and a BC have no problem with.

3) A web is still a must. Running the mwd to keep up is madness from a cap perspective and blows your sig up to the point that nothing can miss you; a web removes the sig bloom issue and is much kinder to your cap hence it remains compulsory for gallente blaster ships and strongly advisable for amarr ships.
This is plain wrong. Shield ships of any kind (like shield blaster boats, or even shield tanked amarr ships) never have been able to fit a web, and that never bothered any of those using them. People still bitching about shield still being superior to armor even on ship with 4 mid slots don't bother either. That is simply because with no rig speed penalty, your ship is as fast as any other ship of its class, and if you wan't to be close and don't overuse your MWD, scram is your friend.


I already addressed all these points BTW, eventhough I didn't quote to quote. I guess you will now try to argue with all of these answers ; your best bet is the second point applyed to a cruiser with a MWD and cap hungry weapons. That leave some playground though IMO and don't disqualify the module.

So yes, these changes don't look like completely OP, something they would if people like you were happy with them. Subtile changes can still be effective, and the objective is not to have 4 years of armor plain superior to shield even on caldari hulls.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1528 - 2013-03-05 07:35:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Ok, let's go about these "facts" :

1) As others have said, active armour tanking never works with one rep on anything above frigate classes, so yes active armour tanking does imply 2 or more repairers.

Now, that could really work, because MAAR, for example, give you a little less hp in 8 cycles than a 1600mm plates without the agility drawback.
==> possible paradigm shift you don't even want to consider.


Ok, so you admit that MAAR does not make active tanking in it's concrete sense viable, and try a paradigm shift. I already showed you how that "EHP" works in reality- you need to rep the incoming damage in order to get all the cycles out. If you don't rep it all, the leftover damage gets reduced from your buffer, and you die when that is over. Before you get all the cycles out of your repper.

This is called "tank breaking", and the problem all the other people in this thread see, but you overlook, is that the threshold for active armor tank breaking is extremely low. This is the reason why you need to either add more reppers, or a plate.


Quote:
2) Even with 1 repairer you will normally require a cap booster. Bear in mind that the ships you're talking about are amarr and gallente both of which have cap greedy weapons.

According to my previous answer, you only need 8 MAAR cycles of cap, which is 8*160 = 1280 GJ in 61 to 72 seconds, something a cruiser with a nos can afford and a BC have no problem with.


Neither Thorax or Vexor has an utility high to spare for a NOS, but I guess dropping a turret to keep the tank running is acceptable for you- as long as you can hold on to your argument, anything goes.

For a BC, one MAAR is simply not enough, but true, you won't need all your cap to run the 8 cycles, you die before that.

Quote:
3) A web is still a must. Running the mwd to keep up is madness from a cap perspective and blows your sig up to the point that nothing can miss you; a web removes the sig bloom issue and is much kinder to your cap hence it remains compulsory for gallente blaster ships and strongly advisable for amarr ships.
This is plain wrong. Shield ships of any kind (like shield blaster boats, or even shield tanked amarr ships) never have been able to fit a web, and that never bothered any of those using them. People still bitching about shield still being superior to armor even on ship with 4 mid slots don't bother either. That is simply because with no rig speed penalty, your ship is as fast as any other ship of its class, and if you wan't to be close and don't overuse your MWD, scram is your friend.


His point was that web is the best candidate for the free mid, I guess, and not some other mythical EWAR mod. Shield blaster fits rely on gank, a shield buffer Brutix does twice as much damage as active armor fit, obviously making a web less necessary.

You are correct about the rig penalty change, I'd even say that active armor Brutix is much faster than most ships of it's class.

Quote:
I already addressed all these points BTW, eventhough I didn't quote to quote. I guess you will now try to argue with all of these answers ; your best bet is the second point applyed to a cruiser with a MWD and cap hungry weapons. That leave some playground though IMO and don't disqualify the module.


No, the main argument is still just the low amount of hp repaired per second of all armor repairers. The cap usage is just an additional downside.

Quote:
So yes, these changes don't look like completely OP, something they would if people like you were happy with them. Subtile changes can still be effective, and the objective is not to have 4 years of armor plain superior to shield even on caldari hulls.


That's a strawman, "anybody who is not happy with shield tanking still being better on active armor tank bonused hulls just wants armor to be OP".

How about starting with making active armor tank the best way to fit a Brutix and Myrmidon. If you are afraid that Drakes start to use active armor ( :D, just buff the hull bonus to 10%.

Anyway, I'm not one of those who have declared the AARs as useless, or this whole Armor Tanking 1.5 as fail, like you seem to think. Clear steps forward and nearly there, but major issues still remain.

- active rig changes were great, and something I've been hoping for a long time
- plate mass penalty reductions and the skill are cool, but I don't think plated ships were too slow and in the end the change makes little practical difference (=armor buffer is fine and imo needs no further buffing)
- AAR works on frigs, just like normal reppers work there, it's even better as frig fights are very short. It works on T2 cruiser fits that used to have a MAR+plate, and is just plain better on them.

What I'm arguing is that classic active only armor tanking is still underpowered outside frigs and niche fits (triple reps on bonused hulls) and very limited encounters. Low rep amount with slow cycle time that can be nulified by a hard counter (neuts) that brings no midslot benefit in ships that need to commit to fights is problematic.

Idea of burst tanking is to rep a ton in a short amount of time. If you can't kill your target before the burst tank ends, you'll most probably die during the reload. Modern day DPS in typical encounters is just massively higher than what active armor reps can handle, and AAR did very little to fix this. 1.69 times way too little is still too little.

P.S. Keep in mind that the basic balancing principle of tanks is= more tank, less damage. Increasing armor rep amount would not break this, they would still do less damage.

.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1529 - 2013-03-05 11:25:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
8 AAR cycles is still in the timeframe of a fight. Indeed, if you want to tank a whole army, that's not enough. But finaly you admit that these changes are mostly fine with the AAR not OP enough to your taste.

BTW, I think that capless ASB is a fundamentaly bad idea, because of the cap immunity, hence why I don't think AAR should be cap immune. If you want to tank a whole army in your single ship, dedicating a mid slot for a cap booster won't only feed your armor repers, but everything else too, and myrmidon for example did it for years, and the AAR didn't even exists. Only the ASB allowed some minmatar ship to do the same. Isn't that quite speaking for itself ?

As for EWAR, indeed the recurent nerf didn't make it obvious OP weapon of doom, but you can notice that people whine a lot about TD recently. My only fear is that it get nerfed too, because I think EWAR being mildly effective on unbonused hull is a good part of the reason why armor laged behind shield for some time.

Shield vs armor always have been armor with more buffer and shield with more burst active tank. What armor needed wasn't a way to become equal to shield for active tank and still superior with pure buffer, but an option for tanking and still being fast enough to compete with shield for mobile situations ; the armor 1.5 did a LOT for this.

You really underestimate EWAR BTW : a TD could significantly reduce your modern day level of dps, may be even to the level of what an AAR can tank. These changes are huge, and I think we can't have a good estimation of how enough or not they will be until they settle in the game, but I tend to think it's good thing they are not obviously OP like the ASB was and like they would probably be if people were very happy with them.

PS : your BC assertion, dying before the 8 cycles of a MAAR, is plain wrong, unless you want to tank multiple ennemies.
PPS about your supposed strawman : "That's a strawman, "anybody who is not happy with shield tanking still being better on active armor tank bonused hulls just wants armor to be OP". " In fact, *you* are making a strawman, because the only thing I'm saying here is that people won't see armor a being good and balanced until it's obviously OP. The other side of the fence is always greener and people lack objectivity.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1530 - 2013-03-06 06:16:15 UTC
Yeah, strawman again. Buffing medium and large armor reppers would make them able to tank whole armies. Fend off swarms of attackers. Destroy galaxies, humiliate coalitions.

Like ASBs do, right? They are twice as powerful, after all.

You seem to be one of those who confuses buffer with active tank, and think that armor buffer fits are just plain better. They are balanced:

Armor buffer: More tank - less damage - more midslots
Shield buffer: Less tank - more damage - more mobility

active tanks:

Armor: Less tank - less damage - cap vulnerable
Shield: More tank - more damage - cap immune

As you can see, you can double active armor tank rep amount, and it would still have less damage and be cap vulnerable for the same amount of tank. Totally OP?

No, I don't underestimate EWAR. TD just doesn't help much when you fly a close range BC, in real situations.

Also, there is no "greener other side" for me, I can and do fly shields. Shield Myrmidon is solid, you should try it.








.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#1531 - 2013-03-06 09:04:25 UTC
Roime wrote:
Yeah, strawman again. Buffing medium and large armor reppers would make them able to tank whole armies. Fend off swarms of attackers. Destroy galaxies, humiliate coalitions.

Like ASBs do, right? They are twice as powerful, after all.

You seem to be one of those who confuses buffer with active tank, and think that armor buffer fits are just plain better. They are balanced:

Armor buffer: More tank - less damage - more midslots
Shield buffer: Less tank - more damage - more mobility

active tanks:

Armor: Less tank - less damage - cap vulnerable
Shield: More tank - more damage - cap immune

As you can see, you can double active armor tank rep amount, and it would still have less damage and be cap vulnerable for the same amount of tank. Totally OP?

No, I don't underestimate EWAR. TD just doesn't help much when you fly a close range BC, in real situations.

Also, there is no "greener other side" for me, I can and do fly shields. Shield Myrmidon is solid, you should try it.


I also fly all forms of tanking; buffer and active, armour and shield. I can honestly say that the only time I will use active armour tanking is either for pve, which i do very little of these days, or if I'm using a heavily pimped proteus in pvp. Mostly for pve, however, I'll use passive shield buffer tanks as they're generally superior to active armour (and we all know buffered armour doesn't work in pve). For pvp I'm far more likely to use ASB for an active tank, it quite simply remains far superior to armour tanking in almost every respect, but most importantly it is immune to cap warfare.

That immunity is the biggest single factor in making the ASB so much better than the AAR. Remove the cap immunity and the AAr and ASB become much, much closer and a real choice would have to be made. The ASB would still remain the stronger tank, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not saying that one change would miraculously balance these 2 out - I still believe the AAR would be slightly inferior. But that'd be the difference, it'd be SLIGHTLY inferior. Right now it's MASSIVELY inferior.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1532 - 2013-03-06 11:59:49 UTC
As I said, there's nothing to discuss with you, because the only things you value are the advantages shield can provide (dps).

And provided a triple rep myrm could take on whole groups, yes, if you want it to be better, it will tank a small army.

Good for you if shield myrm suit your needs, but come back here when you want something else than a low slot shield tanking module.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1533 - 2013-03-06 13:46:24 UTC
Bouh, you're making stuff up. I'm not going to repeat what's been written not only by me, but in majority of all posts in this thread.

.
Ryans Revenge
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1534 - 2013-03-07 05:37:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryans Revenge
Just an idea I've personally had and a lot of people have agreed with as to fixing AAR's or making them more effective but not overpowered.

How about allowing AAR's to rep at their full 300% bonus constantly but they run off of cap boosters directly from your cargo with no cap usage. Therefore they can run at full effectiveness for long enough to be usefull. But then as soon as your out of cap boosters your tank is dead. Just like normal reps requiring a cap booster to run them but freeing up a midslot not needing a cap booster. You could adjust the time cycle / size of cap charges needed to run the AAR for balancing. Still keeping normal repairers for PVE like shield boosters now are and AAR's for pvp as ASB's are.

Just an idea to throw out there.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1535 - 2013-03-07 12:40:47 UTC
There wass a thread in ships&modules about AAR vs ASB, based on the myrmidon. It conclude with the idea that triple rep myrm is arguably better than ASB myrm, because the tank are comparable, but 3rep is more sustainable, and with some tweaking of the fit, you can even get a web.

You took part in this discussion Roime, so you should know.

Armor rep allow for sustainability of tank, something the ASB don't do ; and a web is an EWAR module.

You can also use a Cyclone to compare, and you would see that the sustained tank of a Cyclone is still worse than the one of the 3rep Myrmidon.

Is that enough of an argument ? That's even better than I thought...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#1536 - 2013-03-07 15:13:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Bouh yes, but the conclusion was that Liang had an error in her math.

Tanks were not comparable, AAR not more sustainable, ASB tank lasted about 20 seconds longer.

True, Myrmidon is the only armor BC that can fit a web with a triple rep tank. That's because only the Drake has more midslots.

.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1537 - 2013-03-07 15:18:34 UTC
either way guys it shouldn't take 3 reps to compete with ASB's

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1538 - 2013-03-07 15:28:48 UTC
I was just checking a ETF fit for a navy Dominix, and nearly cried I was pulling a 1k DPS tank an 1100 DPS gank. I was using dual x-large ASB and a full rack of 350mm rails with 3 DDAs

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#1539 - 2013-03-07 17:00:57 UTC
Liang maths may have been slightly wrong, her analysis was not.

Without any implant or booster, 3rep (no AAR) myrm get ~860ehp/s versus 816ehp/s with one XLASB (you should keep the second one to survive the reload of the first one). Not to mention that XLASB will only work 36s BTW, so you will tank even less if you pulse the ASB to survive one minute (almost half that in fact).

With AAR, 3rep (AAR) myrm tank 1059ehp/s for 52 seconds ; 574ehp/s for one minute. It tank 1605ehp/s with dual XLASB for 36 seconds, and 0ehp/s for one minute.

Myrmidon have too many midslots ? Fine, but that's so much for armor ship tanking better with ASB than with armor. And I'm not even talking about all those BC with only 4 mid slots.

But let's go deeper with numbers : a Cyclone can go twin XLASB, though it will kill its fitting to the point we won't talk about dps advantage anymore, exactly like an active armor tanking ship wont have midslots anymore. With one XLASB, you reach 1082ehp/s. Does this number remember you something ? Yes, indeed, it's almost the same than 3rep (AAR) myrm.

Of course, you may get insane numbers with a Drake, exactly as you can with a Prophecy, because they have one more slot on top of their godly bonus.

EFT don't tell what happen when the ASB need to reload, and that is why active armor is better for sustained tank than XLASB ; and that is why AAR and ASB can be seen as spreaded over time plates.
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#1540 - 2013-03-07 19:55:51 UTC
thread ate my post :(