EVE General Discussion

Speaking over heat, any chance you can hit someone up about fixing the green Overload part of the module? it's annoyingly small and fiddly, and would be a welcomed change by all I believe

(inb4shortcutderpers)

I'm sorry it just makes no sense to me to have active tanking bonuses on ships that have them. This is not a scaling problem or a problem with active tanking. Its a problem when you give them to ships that must fight in close:
1) Have to fight in close= blaster boats= in neut range.
2) because they are in close range, they will take entire enemy gang's max DPS and will need all the buffer it can get to give any remote rep/internal rep time to cycle (because that mechanic sucks on armor repping too), if your lucky enough to have it.
3) Most have too few mid slots to dedicate to cap booster to fix problem 1, except the mrym, which isn't even a blaster boat.
4) All the other primary systems on the ship eat cap (ie the Blasters.)

It would have made more sense to make amarr the active tankers and Gallente the passive tankers with high resists. Or actually, even better- shield tanked. But what ever. I'm so tired of how broken this mechanic is I give up.

Bottom line, scaling is not the issue. Active tanking in a close in fight is just pointless. Neuts will kill you too quick.

Well, that would be cool, but probably over powered. Then neuts loose all purpose. As much as I would enjoy that, it would be too over the top. I'm not asking for Gallente to pawn everything else. I just want to have a fighting chance.

I mean it would probably make more sense for all blaster boats to get a utility high slot and be able to fit a vamp in there, and then sufficiently increase the vamp's performance to make it very difficult to neut you out, but not impossible. But frankly, why have to tweak all that stuff. Just passive tank it and be done with it. Its more flexible and can survive in a wide range of situations from small gang to larger fleet issues. I think armor repping in general should be changed to give the repair upon activation vice at the end, like shields but hey. Can't do that now can we.

Just give me a second bonus to scram range on Gallente ships and I'd be happy. Maybe another mid slot on some of the ships for some cap boosters.

Btw, if you can't fit a capbooster on a Brutix, let me show you :



See ?

It can tank another battlecruiser 1vs1, it can tank a few cruisers (like 2/3 without much troubles), it can deal 560 DPS, it can hold tight any ship it catches (Like stupid cynabals/Vagabonds, they'll melt against a decent brutix).

But again, what's the problem with this ship ? Look at the lowslots, they are all dedicated to tanking. You have literally no damage mod. You're superior (But not by a good margin) to a buffer tanked ship in a 1vs2/3 cruisers situation because the buffer tanked Brutix will die in a fire before killing the 2 cruiser. But you have worse tracking, worse damage, you're not even capable of running your MWD because of the active tank who literally obliterate your capacitor.

If you apply the changes I've put in the OP, well, here is how it could look like :



So what changed ? Here is what changed :

You get 800 per 22 second cycles (12 second for one cycle, 10 second for the module to reload) before the changes.

You get 1600 per 34 second cycles (24 second for two cycles, 10 second for the module to reload) after the changes.

What do you get ? 36.4GJ/s before the changes, 47GJ/s after the changes.

Your capacitor is now a bit more stable.

Each Medium Armor Repairer needed 173 PWG before the changes. It needs 103,8 after the changes, successfully freeing up 138,4 PWG.

Your medium capacitor booster needed 150 PWG before the changes. It needs 90 PWG after the changes, successfully freeing up 60 PWG.

With the changes, you now have 198,4 additionnal PWG to play with, for bigger guns.

1312/1437 PWG before the changes, with Electron blasters II

1113,6/1437 PWG after the changes, with the same guns.

Still not enough to fit a full rack of neutrons, but hey, you can fit Ions, get more DPS, and more range (maybe you can fit meta 4 neutrons with an implant, I did enough maths already :( )

You free up some CPU on the capbooster, even though it's not really needed on this ship.

So what ? More damage (560 DPS vs 689 DPS), more range (Not enough to be noticable on medium blasters, I agree), more tank (A little bit, because 2x15% is better than 1x20%), easier to maintain a decent amount of capacitor, Isn't that a gallente buff ?

Those stats were calculated by hand, I can't really modify EFT, and I didn't add the incoming hybrid changes.

Let me talk about the Cyclone for a moment.



Let's give some stats :

532/531 CPU (With faction stuff. The DG LSB is 35M or something, don't remember about the warp scrambler)
1489/1512 PWG


With a meta-X damage control, and with faction stuff, it barely fit. Really ?

The DG Large Shield booster 85 CPU. The T2 version uses 115 CPU. What ? +30 CPU ?

With 5 slots, tell me what you're supposed to fit on an active PVP ship. A Capbooster. A tackle module (Warp scrambler, you won't chase around vagabonds with that fat cyclone). A MWD (It's ok not to have one in a Maelstrom because it's a ship that actually WORKS decently) because you're still a battlecruiser, you can't accept to be as slow as battleships, and a shield booster.

Where's the room for hardeners, shield boost amplifiers and such ?

There is this one medslot. Fill it with an invulnerability field and here you go.

Resistances ? Here they are : 53/62/62/68.

I'm sorry, but with a ship THAT vulnerable to neutralizers (Medium neuts will hurt it quite a bit, Heavy neutralizers will WRECK IT), slow, low DPS (538, despite the two gyros), the shield amount doesn't exceed 4400 (literally 1k less than the Brutix's armor, but it's fine because it has always been like that, I'm not complaining on that), you have kinda low resistances...

I like greyscale and fon.

I generally disagree with OP

Any more feedback about how to fix active tanking ?

At the risk of being trolled here ...

can we divert power to the shields?

I am serious, a sort of super overload on armor rep and shield boost, something that makes their cycle time VERY short, which will make them drain your cap faster and hence not be sustainable. Hell you could drop cap recharge during this mode and say 3 minutes afterwards that might be enough.

It would be nice to put all the potential into doing damage with scant resources used for defense (which includes tanks and support). I prefer the idea that a certain amount of resource must be spent in defense, or real vulnerability appears. This should hold true for fleet action vessels especially. Fleets should have to be balanced. The issue should be forced. There should be no all DPS fleet.

Shield boosters/armor reppers are very good ideas, but their cap and power useage aren't realistic. PVE vs. PVP fits make this two separate issues, though. An ideal solution for one would seem to throw the other out of whack. Simplifying resistances through ship attributes alone, with no mods augmenting them would certainly determine ship choices. However, using a uniform standard, as if the tech-standard is universal, isn't all that unrealistic.

What I find objectionable are calibration inequities or insufficiencies that allow for a distorted/imbalanced preferred method barring all other possibilities. At present cap draining seems to be the method of choice. Regardless of your tank, and weapons, having one mod that can make a ship useless despite all its other attributes may make life simple for some, but is indicative of poor calibration. One mod defeating the entire inventory of mods - even cap boosters, just doesn't make sense.

But yeah. All things being as they are, it CAN be truthfully said active tanking has been calibrated into relative uselessness. And for us Minmatar...the duct tape solution for every ill seems to be getting out of reach, too (but, that's another story.)

My biggest qualm with active tanking is the huge difference in capability between armor and shield.

Numbers from T1 versions

Shield has: S (12 hp/s), M (22 hp/s), L (45 hp/s), and XL (90 hp/s). (easily amplified by boost amps and rigs)

Armor has: S (10 hp/s), M (20 hp/s), L (40 hp/s). (only amplified by rigs)

Given that armor reps (after smalls) take around 10x the PG to fit, and the only way to match the tank a shield can do is to double up on reps, it makes it near pointless b/c you generally have to take off guns to make reps fit.

Where is the balance here? The only 'trade off' i see to the fact armor uses 10x more PG is that shields use more CPU (average of 2x more), but unless i'm trying to T2 mine w/ my battleship, i rarely ever have to make concessions from running out of CPU.

Actually, compare the cap per second used between shield/armor for each counterpart, It's not even double. its only 167% or something (on average) example being large reps, armor uses 26.6 cap/s, shield uses 40.

And your argument doesn't hold much water about the CPU when comparing Teir 3 BS's...(not using cap boosters b/c i'm counting FULL self stable cap, not retreating every 3 mins to get more charges)

i can fit a full rack of 800's on a Mael, plus full T2 (1 XL T2 booster) tank, and if i want to remain stable i can fill the low's w/ cap mods as needed (fill in extra w/ dmg mods)

Look at Hyper, in order to match the hp/s, you need to put 2x large reps. But to fit them, you can only have 6 rails. And still to remain stable, all the mids must be cap mods.

And yet, they tank about the same (Mael still wins though), but one is way less effective than the other.

Am i wrong?