These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Active Tanking (CCP, please read)

First post
Author
Razin
The Scope
#21 - 2011-11-10 18:17:27 UTC
Cunane Jeran wrote:
The idea of having a Cap booster like charge to active tanking is an idea I like a lot, made the same size of cap booster charges would be great, a chance to have a super strong active tank, for a very limited amount of time.

Of course you'd have the problem of certain people having a cloaky hauler follow them so they could have an almost unlimited amount during the fight but still, the idea has promise.

This is avoidable if you allow the repper to have it's own capacitor that charges at a slow rate.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 - 2011-11-10 18:17:35 UTC
The way you'd probably want to deal with a charge-driven repairer is to give it a really long reload time.

Another option is to use the heat system, but it's not hugely user-friendly and ends up with your reps being burnt out which is less cool.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#23 - 2011-11-10 18:18:42 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


pretty simple really make the 7.5% work for incomming RR... presto fixed :)

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2011-11-10 18:20:47 UTC
Cailais wrote:

A couple of options spring to mind. One is to add a form of ammo to armour reps - for an injection of HP. Another is to add scripts to armour reps. Such scripts would modify the repair rate/amount with some counter balance in terms of agiltity / speed or capacitor.

C.



I like this very much. Scripts.

Though all this looks very difficult to balance. I accepted as facts that active tanked ships are usefull in smallscale warfare and not in anything else, so I didn't bother finding a solution for scalability.

I would say, if you want to keep active tanking as it is, a small-scale warfare weapon, then apply the changes I posted. If you want to bring scalability, well then it needs some brainstorming.

The problem is, active tanking should be a valid option when in a bigger fleet. How to make it a valid option. How to absorb a huge amount of damage, while not being overpowered in small gang warfare.

Maybe some siege-like scripts for reppers ? Like, you get +100% HP repaired, -50% duration, -60% velocity for the duration of the cycle ? But then it rises more problems. Against a big fleet, your paperthin buffer (due to active setup) will melt, and you still won't have enough time to rep the incoming damage, despite having massively more effective reppers. The velocity malus would allow you to warp faster (like the web trick) and it might be a big balancing issue.

Or just like Cailais said, ammo for armor reps ? Just like capbooster charges. It would still be a pain to balance, but you can, for exemple, have 500HP/25m3, 1500HP/50m3, 3000HP/75m3, 5000HP/100m3, 8000HP/150m3 (The first value being the raw armor HP repaired, the second being the volume it would take in the armor repper). The armor reppers would have 50m3 and a 4s cycle for a small one, medium ones would have 100m3 and a 8s cycle, large ones would have 300m3 and a 10s cycle.

It would allow you to store 3x5000HP in a large repper, ready to unleash them when you're in low armor.

But then again it would be a huge pain in the butt to balance it and I'm not really in the mood of trying to balance all that :/
Hienz Doofenshmirtz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#25 - 2011-11-10 18:22:15 UTC
your coming at this like there is a problem with active tanking, and there isn't. the problem is your coming at this like I should be able to fit anything and be able to run it no matter how much cap it uses. try running a setup that your ship can handle, try having logistic support, try something new. while cap boosters have ther place in this game, they are not built so you can perma run your tank. your running out of power grid and cpu becaue your trying to fitt things on a ship they are not meant to fit on.. and this is coming from me, I can perma run an xl shield booster on a cruiser, because I know how to setup the ship to fit it.

www.dust514stats.com do you know?

qwijJibow
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#26 - 2011-11-10 18:27:25 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

pretty simple really make the 7.5% work for incomming RR... presto fixed :)


THIS!
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-11-10 18:29:34 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:

pretty simple really make the 7.5% work for incomming RR... presto fixed :)


Actually nope. You'd have to buffer that ship anyway, since RR + no local buffer = too easy to alpha while logis lock you and start reps.

And then it'd probably be just about on par with ships with +5% resist bonuses, which get to use it even with local passive, active or buffer tanks, regardless of RR.
Kralin Ignatov
Wraith Dragon Fleet
#28 - 2011-11-10 18:30:04 UTC
Salpun wrote:
idea


I like the general idea of this, but the energy for reps would still need to come from the capacitor

I.E. Incoming damage causes the repair mod to use 1 energy / 2 armor hp rep, but now it repairs within 1 second. Thus, if your Archon just got hit for 6k, say goodbye to 3k capacitor.

Thus, ships can still get alpha'd, however anything less than an alpha gets repaired in full, charging the appropriate cap. While the rep mod is idle, it can charge a very small amount of cap to stay on.

This state would ignore already existing damage unless scripted to do so.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2011-11-10 18:30:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Riedle
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


Logistics and leadership skills that give bonusus to local(Ie the reps themselves that are on the ship - not from traditional logistics reps), active repping?

This could be a good replacement for for the tracking enhancement bonus on the Oneiros..


mmm.. A Squad of Dual rep Stabber fleet issues with a couple of Oneiros'

~drool~
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
#30 - 2011-11-10 18:32:00 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
...The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels...

You already introduced a boost+limiter when you added heat why not abuse it?

Give them a ridiculously high performance and cap use when heated, as in factor 2 or more, and tweak heat .. massive cap drain combined with time-to-burnout gives you the desired effect of not being OP in large or lengthy engagements.

Rest can not be balanced due to the infinite scaling of Eve, only option for you is to design mechanics that make the scaling less of an issue by favouring smaller gangs ..... you know, the goal you have been droning on about since before I joined 6+ years ago
Big smile
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2011-11-10 18:32:16 UTC
"Having logistic support" is as stupid as "try dropping some titans on the field".

I was talking about solo or small scale warfare. If I wanted logistic support, then I wouldn't bother using an active tank, and I would rather buffer tank the fsck out of my ship.

Also, tell me on which cruiser you're permarunning your XLSB (Not a T3 of course, everything is possible with those, though if you fit an XLSB, you probably aren't going to PVP with it)

The 7.5% bonus for incoming RR won't help. It's not an issue about how ships with active tank bonuses have troubles with receiving RR or anything, it's an issue about how active tanked ships are hard to fit because of fitting requirements of an effective active tank setup. Also, they fill a pretty small niche currently, why not help them doing what they are supposed to do instead of screwing them up with capbooster problems and such ?

+ The 7.5% bonus to incoming RR on the Maelstrom...The mittani's going to be pointed at if this change go through.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2011-11-10 18:37:58 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
"Having logistic support" is as stupid as "try dropping some titans on the field".

I was talking about solo or small scale warfare. If I wanted logistic support, then I wouldn't bother using an active tank, and I would rather buffer tank the fsck out of my ship.

Also, tell me on which cruiser you're permarunning your XLSB (Not a T3 of course, everything is possible with those, though if you fit an XLSB, you probably aren't going to PVP with it)

The 7.5% bonus for incoming RR won't help. It's not an issue about how ships with active tank bonuses have troubles with receiving RR or anything, it's an issue about how active tanked ships are hard to fit because of fitting requirements of an effective active tank setup. Also, they fill a pretty small niche currently, why not help them doing what they are supposed to do instead of screwing them up with capbooster problems and such ?

+ The 7.5% bonus to incoming RR on the Maelstrom...The mittani's going to be pointed at if this change go through.


We were responding to Mr CCP's issue that active tanks aren't used in larger fleets.
Plato Idari
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
#33 - 2011-11-10 18:51:49 UTC
Just an idea; how about make active tanks a bit more active? (this might work well as a new kind of active rep module)
The goal of this suggestion is to make reps give a much larger burst of health, but force a pilot to turn them off to avoid burning through the capacitor. This should force an active tank pilot to manage their repairer. When done well it is more effective than it is today, when done poorly it is worse.

(feel free to play with the numbers)

1) 4x the amount repaired per rep cycle.
2) 2x repair cycle time
3) 8x capacitor cost

Now turning on your armor repairer gives you a lot of health, as long as you don't die to an alpha this has increased your effective hp.
Cylce time is longer to avoid making the micro too painful.
Increased capacitor drain makes it impossible to be cap stable while leaving the reper on.
Gregor Marethel
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2011-11-10 18:52:00 UTC
There's a few good options for fixes that could be done. First, you could make overheat act rather more like triage, where you get +100% to the amount and the cycle time is 50%, then you just adjust the heat damage so you can only overload for 30-60 seconds. This makes it much more viable in PvP and it wouldn't change PvE much.

Another option is scripts or booster items that others suggested above.

Perhaps a bit more difficult, you could change rep modules to a dynamic cycle time or rep amount that asymptotically approaches a fairly low tank from a much higher tank. For instance, instead of a small armor rep II always healing 80 armor every 4.5 sec it could start healing 300 the first cycle, 200 the second, 150 the third, etc. until it eventually hits maybe 20-40 armor per cycle, then turning it off slowly recharges it back to full potential.
Daedalus Arcova
The Scope
#35 - 2011-11-10 18:56:36 UTC
A short-term massive increase to active tanking isn't going to help in a fleet fight. Even if a Hyperion could rep up the incoming damage from say, 20 Drakes for however long it could run the reppers at enhanced performance, as soon as it run out of cap, charges or whatever, then it's dead. The blob of DerpaDrakes will just keep the Hyperionas primary because the FC knows that it can't sustain that amount of repping power for very long.

Active tanking simply isn't suitable for anything more than skirmishing. Another reason why Gallente are so unpopular in fleet fights (besides hybrids) is that two of their most powerful ships - the Brutix and Hyperion - are totally gimped in fleet battles by wasted active tanking bonuses.
ArmyOfMe
Teddybears.
Dead Terrorists
#36 - 2011-11-10 18:58:23 UTC
George Wilkes Hill wrote:
I like the idea of active reppers having inherent resistance bonuses to them.

Not empty quoting.

This actually sounds like a very nice way to boost active tanking

GM Guard > I must ask you not to use the petition option like this again but i personally would finish the chicken sandwich first so it won´t go to waste. The spaghetti will keep and you can use it the next time you get hungry. Best regards.

David Grogan
NerdHerd
#37 - 2011-11-10 18:59:26 UTC
+1 to the 50% deduction in cap charge volume

cap 400's & 800's take up way too much volume. Also allow the modules fit more charges in.

1x medium cap injector being able to only hold 1x cap 800 at a time sucks.... increase it to be able to hold 5

1x large cap injectors should be able to hold 10 cap 800's in it.

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.

Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#38 - 2011-11-10 19:02:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Destination SkillQueue
I like the idea of being able to absorb and/or rep huge amounts of burst damage for a short period of time with active tanking. I'm not really interested in making it so powerful, that it becomes a real alternative in fleet fights compared to buffer tanking. The different tanking methods should have their strenghts and weaknesses, so you should not just focus on having active tanking replace buffer tanking where it excells.

One of the biggest beefs I have personally is, that it takes several reppers to realisticly tank anything these days. I don't want the ability to permatank in PvP with a single repper, but I would like the ability for a single repper to take advantage of all of my ships cap and provide that extra damage protection for those few precious seconds of trouble. Different scripts sound like perfect tools for this kind of a job. Please don't force us to carry another cap boost style item, unless you absolutely can't think of making it work by other means. I'm sure CCP can come up with sufficient drawbacks or cooldowns to using such alternative scripts, so that it doesn't become overpowered.

Again I don't want to try to overthrow buffer tanking. I want new abilitities to deal with different tactical situations. Anywhere where you absolutely need that burst protection this would be very useful. For example having a chance of surviving the few kms back to the gate when you hit a large gatecamp, surviving half assed suicide ganks as long as you have either buffer or active burst tank fitted, buying a few extra second of life for that all important tackler until other points get in range or anything where a few seconds of damage mitigation make a difference between victory and defeat, while at the same time you want to avoid the speed reduction/sig bloom of a buffer tank or simply can't afford a permanent, no hassle HP buffer from fitting perspective.

I want active repping having some kind of boost, but please don't miss this opportunity to explore the possibilities and problems such buff presents. Having more tactical elements in EVE combat is just as important element, if not more important for the overall gameplay, as just trying to make active tanking more competative compared to buffer tanking.
Opertone
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#39 - 2011-11-10 19:04:56 UTC
it normally works this way with NPCs

they do more damage, you loose hitpoints, you kill some of them, your ship is stable, pocket cleared, you rep back up or let your shield recharge.

Your active tank is not meant to block the incoming damage, yet it helps you regain hit points in the short break between assaults.

Active tank does not suck in PvP, actually smart 'pilots' know that it's best to kill one by one, leaving no survivers, and to reduce enemy forces. Thus skilled pilots focus fire and break tanks. If everybody attacked his own target, like in space films (i.e. one on one engagement despite large numbers) active tanking could mean more.

One on one fights in a huge battle are not possible because of the warp drive, the enemy can engage warp drive at any time. Remember that warp drive does not exist in space films (or has very limited use).

If your survivability only depended on your orbiting and thrusters, then hell yes, you avoid 30 foes, and tank some 2 on your tail.

But in eve it is an 18th century warfare... line up, shoot, await outcome. Fleet on fleet duel, whole fleet primaries one target, then switches to another. And mainly because you can not chase an enemy, 250 km play box and if they get out of range, they warp, so it is useless to pick individual targets.

If warp drive was not operational while guns are active - PvP would totally rock and become a commitment. Imagine a 60 second cool down between gun activation and warp engine readiness.

You shoot, you get your fight, but you have to take it, leaving the enemy an option to snipe or follow
.

This post sums up why the 'best' work with DCM inc.

WARP DRIVE makes eve boring

really - add warping align time 300% on gun aggression and eve becomes great again

Turkatron
#40 - 2011-11-10 19:07:12 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
stuff...


You can't have your cake and eat it too, as much as you would like to.
Active tanking is a tradeoff with ewar/sig (shield) and dps/speed (armor).
Active tanking in general is a risk when facing nuets; just as buffer tanking is a risk because you are not able to recover hp.

The fitting and slot usage "problems" you note are good problems. They balance the ships in a way that prevents you from fitting a ship with T2 mods and making it overpowered. If your active tank cyclone can tank 1000dps(for example), it should not be able to dish out 600dps. That's terrible, a T1 battlecruiser should not be capable of that.
Also, a shield tank does not hurt your speed and therefor ewar in the mid slots is less of a need.

I do however agree that cap boosters need some work. I think a 50% reduction in volume is a bit extreme. It would make active shield tanking too good perhaps; most of the time active shield tanks are used as burst tanks. As a result, 2min of cap time in eft can translate to much more than that depending on how the fight scales. I have been in fights where I did not use any cap charges while tanking damage and have also been in fights where I used them all.
Active armor on the other hand suffers. Perhaps there should be two types of cap injection. One that caters towards burst tanks, and one that caters towards sustained tanks. For example, if armor reps used a bit less cap and smaller cap charges took up less space. Then there could be a burst cap booster for 800/400 charges which would remain unchanged from current cap boosters and a sustained cap booster for 200/100 (scaled to module size of course). The sustained booster could cycle faster to accommodate the smaller cap charges.

The main problem I see is the desparity between active shield and active armor. Not only does active shield allow for a higher dps platform than active armor, it is also far superior in tanking potential. None of this fixes Gallente ships but if armor tanking became more viable it would help.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
... With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS)

Indefinitely is a misnomer, you will eventually run out of cap charges if you cannot kill your opponent(s) fast enough.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.


That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to me. There should be tradeoffs between active and buffer. If active works well against large numbers also, there will be less reason to use buffer.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
... The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels.

This would only be a "fix" up to the amount of buffer the active tank has. With a burst tank who cares if you can tank 7000dps on paper, if you only have 1000ehp you will die. Burst tanks repair a very large percentage of hp with each cycle.
However, this an is interesting idea. Perhaps active tanks (or at least those meant for bursting) could have a repair half-life. Where the first cycle during activation repairs more hp than a sustained repair, then each cycle afterwords decreases repair amount till it hits a pre-defined floor for the module being used.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.

This seems like a bad idea to start, but could be another hint at how to draw the line between burst and sustained. Perhaps sustained repair modules would also add a resistance bonus.


TLDR;
Come up with a way to separate burst and sustained tanking by changing repair modules and cap injectors. Either creating two types for both shield and armor, or making shield burst only and armor sustained only.