These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2011-11-19 04:11:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Quote:
He also mentioned adding scaling into it, where a small, less effecting attack would proved less of a penalty.

Do people not read?


Okay, then use a Heavy nos. Or load a useless ammo type which has no chance in hell of hitting, and fire it at the target without actually doing any damage to it. Whatever gets implemented, people will find a way around it.

You're also forgetting the obvious implication that this will help logi tanking just as much as it helps active tanking, which sort of works contrary to the point of implementing it.

On a more constructive note, I honestly don't think this is a good idea. Implementing limitations like this are sort of contrary to what makes eve great; that a force with twice as much firepower is actually twice as potent, that nothing can stop you of making use of your superior numbers, that it's a sandbox with no artificial restrictions.

To balance active tanking, I'd push for a small nerf to EHP (down to 80-90% of what it is now), and buffing NOS into useful counters to neuts - so that as long as your opponent has cap to neut you, you can use a nos to steal that cap and re-use it. This means ships like the Nos-curse and Nos-domi can go back to their fearsome, active tanked small gang roots.

Is this going to make active tanking viable on a large fleet scale for anything apart from triage carriers/siege dreads? No. As it should be. Fleets are meant to work together to survive, not to have one or two ships being able to solotank everything while needing minimal help. This is a team game, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#182 - 2011-11-19 04:30:06 UTC
ok another idea...
1)
- lets say a self repper would rep armor % instead of HP. This would make buffer + local repper fits feasible.
- the actual formula doesn't have to be linear. So you could have a certain repping penalty per plate or armor module.
- remote repper mechanics stay the same

this would at least solve part of the issue and make some solo pve fittings pvp compatible

2)
to tackle the problem with "peak dps repping" scripts could be used (like already suggested).

However finding a good penalty is difficult. Maybe doing this the star trek way like "transfer all energy to the repper". A repper would rep faster with a certain script but all other modules would cycle slower (guns, maybe even passive module penalties and ship speed).

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#183 - 2011-11-19 09:32:23 UTC
FeralShadow wrote:
How would it break it if armor tanking modules go to mid slots and you change the slot layouts to compensate?


Ok, change the slot layouts in a balanced way for hundreds of ships (Including capitals/frigates/whatever).

And then what ? You'll get more DPS on an armor ship, fine. If you still fit tackling modules/MWDs/capbooster, you'll still be short on tanking, but because of tackling modules instead of damage mods...

The actual problem isn't the scalability of active tanking. A ship that can hold the DPS of 150 peoples alone isn't something I would call realistic. A ship that can hold the DPS of 150 peoples with 15 logistics seems more balanced to me.

That means, active tanking stays in small scale warfare.

That's why the fixes I've put in the OP are all about NOT increasing the flat efficiency of armor repairers/shield boosters. Active tanked ship would be able to tank too much. Maybe you're thinking about your Brutix tanking 2 Hurricanes, but I'm talking about a Maelstrom tanking 6 Vagabonds, 3 Cynabals, a Dramiel, a Rapier and 2 hurricanes. And yes, it's possible, but I just don't want to buff that again. Instead, I'm trying to remove the pain in the butt that comes with fitting active tanks on ships.

Brutixes are always shield fitted, I've never seen Hyperions around so can't tell, never seen Cyclones either.

Why ? Because it's easy to make it fail, and hard to make it effective. And I want that to change, and I believe the fixes in the OP will at least partially fix the problem.

Buffer tanking is difficult to break because it's just a huge HP pool without any kind of stuff that you can shut off. And it's pretty easy to fit one, because of the ├╝berlow fitting requirements.
Infinion
Awesome Corp
#184 - 2011-11-19 10:44:32 UTC
SMT008, is it because you want to normalize the fitting requirements between active and passive tanks, or because you don't want to sacrifice slots that increase powergrid and cpu?
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#185 - 2011-11-19 10:56:41 UTC  |  Edited by: SMT008
I don't really want to normalize, I want to slightly reduce fitting requirements for active tanks so it's easier to fit.

I've posted stats about how hard to fit a Cyclone/Brutix is compared to the buffer tanked version of them.

I don't want active tanking to be a walk in the park, I want it NOT to be like running in a Lion's cage with a meatsuit.

There is already plenty of disavantages with active tanking, let's cut some of these off.
Onictus
Capital Fusion.
Pandemic Horde
#186 - 2011-11-19 11:07:05 UTC
Infinion wrote:
SMT008, is it because you want to normalize the fitting requirements between active and passive tanks, or because you don't want to sacrifice slots that increase powergrid and cpu?



As it stands active armor reppers are essentially like adding turrets in term of power grid, and you have to use two, because one ....even a large.....barely covers the DPS of a Rupture.

This makes them, un-competitive at the BS level, its a little better in Battlecruiser, where a 1600mm plate is roughly two turrets worth of grid. You still see dual plated battlecruisers, so it can work, but by and large the fitting reqirements are ...painful.
Niamo Higate
Perkone
Caldari State
#187 - 2011-11-19 11:44:06 UTC
This is a suggestion for armor reps... not sure on shield boosters yet.

Instead of having the armor reps continually cycle, have them hold cycles, while adding to the armor HP even while you are at 100% armor. This will increase EHP while the rep is on full cycle, but keep its sustained repair amount in smaller fights.

Example:

You are in a large fleet battle, and have 2 large armor reps fitted. your max armor HP is 5k. your reps can repair a total of 1k each per cycle. Before you land on grid you activate the 2 armor reps and let them reach full cycle, now instead of repairing nothing and cycling again, they hold at full cycle for your ship to take armor damage. With my proposed changes each rep will effectively block 1k damage in .5 (can be changed) seconds. So if you are primary and alpha'd, you now have 7k armor HP.

For smaller scale warfare, you probably will not take 1k damage in a .5 second time span. So if you would take armor damage, and the .5 seconds runs out the rest of the available armor repair form the module would be wasted.

Using the same ship from above, you have 5k armor HP, and 1 rep with 1k HP per cycle. You get attacked with your rep on full cycle but the enemy only deals 500 damage in a the first .5 seconds to your armor. your rep would block the 500, but waste the other 500 and restart its cycle. The enemy now has the while 10 sec cycle time ( or however long it is) to deal damage to your original armor hp.

The armor reps will function the same if you already have armor damage, repairing any damage only up to 100% then cycling again.
Maxsim Goratiev
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2011-11-19 14:28:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev
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.

You are right that isn't not scalable, but currently it is also unfit-table. So please do something about it's fittability, or all the scalability you give it will prove useless.

I would be entirely fine with their unscalability if they actually had a real advantage in s,all scale warfare, currently they are disadvantaged in all scales of warfare.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#189 - 2011-11-19 14:43:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Thanks for the responses CCP Greyscale.


Not sure if you read past Page 3 - but I'll make a quick post on my thoughts here :


#1 - The other issue with active repping is that you can get vaporized in massive fleet fights before you can ever get a repair off - this is especially pronounced on the armor repping side of things.


Looking at current game mechanics - adding some kind of buffer tank would be necessary to ensure some survival for active tanks while the rep kicks off - otherwise you'll never get to use your active tank. This can easily be done by adding some plating along with an active tank, but gets hungry on the fitting side - but I don't think that decision is necessarily bad or poor for a player. I think solid tanks always ask more than players want from them. You can't get max DPS and max tank and that is good. Everyone needs to make a sacrifice somewhere on their tank.


One thing to look at is the concept of the Shield Boost Amplifiers. Currently, they give a passive bonus to shield boosting, so keep that shield bonus, HOWEVER, you can make it a CHARGE taking item that can take a consumed item that when activated provides a massive boot to armor repair rate for a short time - of course create a similar item for an armor repairer. The item could be simply a capacitor booster, and maybe the duration of bonus is based on the size of the cap booster consumed - this would provide a cargohold limitation but also put a bit of a limitation based on the size of the ship that is using the booster... it does create a "cargohold" competition for using those boosters for Cap Boosters or this Active Booster idea which adds decision making challenges.


In some ways it would be like a mini-siege module - so maybe it could take strontium? Or maybe just create a sub-cap "siege/triage" module with different bonuses/penalties and not so debilitating.


I would say the item would have to provide a greater bonus than having simply used that fitting slot for another repairer - so I'd say at least +150% or more while running that Active Tanking Amplifier.

Where I am.

Nikollai Tesla
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#190 - 2011-11-20 08:45:17 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.


I posted my idea here to how to make local rep better:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=374694#post374694

Normally you call a target primary and everyone attacks them once that target is dead you continue to the next. This is because even a damaged target fights back at 100%. And you want the target dead before any repair ability will kick in. As long as people can implement this tactic, since its the most obvious local tanks will suck.

Why is a Remote Rep fleet powerful ? Because each ships repair power is merged together, and does scale with number of defenders. But in order for your allies to repair you they must target you and repair before you die. In this case you fit buffer to give time for the repair to reach you.


Basically If you could make ships screen each other to a limit, and disperse damage among a squad local tanks would scale up to a higher point that they do today. Since in a squad all ships repair would stack compared to incoming DPS. This would make them more durable to alpha situations or jamming since its not depended on getting friendly locks in time.


Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#191 - 2011-11-20 16:24:33 UTC
I have my idea to fix the problem :
Active tank can be described as a capacitor tank with the major drawback of being non scalable with incoming fire.
In this way of thinking, my idea is to give armor reper and shield booster a script which turn them into armor/shield reinforcer, turning them into active buffer.
small/med/large reper/booster would then absorb 10/20/30 % of armor/shield damage taken with capacitor at a ratio of armor/shield hp repaired for activation cost of the module (which is 2hp/GJ for tech2 armor reper and 1,5hp/GJ for tech2 shield booster ; increased by ship bonuses/rig).
Number can be tweaked of course, but this system would resolve the problem of scalability of active tanking by allowing it to function at its full effectiveness whatever the incoming dps ; full effectiveness being consuming all the capacitor.
Overload could increase the absorption amount by 10-20%, allowing the ship to tank more damage, but to consume its capacitor even more faster.

With the numbers I suggested here, here what happen with an abaddon using 5 slot for tanking :
abaddon 3eanm,DC,LAR2 : ~79% median resistance + 30% (new LAR) ==> 85,3% median resistance ==> 72279 aehp (armor ehp) ;; 21683 damage mitigated ==> 10841 capacitor used
abaddon dc, 2eanm, 2plates : ~75% median resistance ==> 84500 aehp

Then, active tank keep its natural drawback (cap use, less ehp than buffer tank) but now scale as well as buffer tank with damage. Better : current active tanking remain exactly the same and active tanker will have more options for fights ; and active tanking bonuses on ships will not be useless anymore in fleet !
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#192 - 2011-11-20 22:58:24 UTC
But then would the damages be instantly converted into capacitor damage, or would it be a xhp/s thing ?

chrisss0r
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#193 - 2011-11-20 23:14:04 UTC
How about a "panic mode" on the active tank mod that allows you to survive a fixed amount of time (eg 10 seconds) no matter waht the incoming dps is and then the module shuts off completely until you rep it in a station.

This would mean there would be a real trade off again between plating and effective tank. If you expect that your buffer fit will keep you alive longer than 10 seconds you fit the buffer and if you suspect to live less you fit the active tank.




but then again this is basically a paladin shield and therefor must be a terrible idea
Vmir Gallahasen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2011-11-20 23:15:53 UTC
Let's just start with decreasing cap booster volume and the effectiveness of EHP rigs. I'd like to see other things done as well but that would be a good start and we could see where things end up.
Sphit Ker
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#195 - 2011-11-20 23:17:46 UTC
stop telling me ppl posted in this thread kthxbye

It knows what you think.

Freyja Asynjur
Folkvangr
#196 - 2011-11-21 00:27:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Freyja Asynjur
I'd like to see the pirate crystal implants set disappear, and shield boost bonus on shield boost bonufied ships be buffed to compensate that loss, so they would behave from the start like a crystal bonufied ship... so they would be a valid option for low cost fun and not the rich man solo pvp niche.

-

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#197 - 2011-11-21 15:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Bouh Revetoile
SMT008 wrote:
But then would the damages be instantly converted into capacitor damage, or would it be a xhp/s thing ?


Damage would be instantly converted to capacitor damage.
I made a thread in features and ideas : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=35905&find=unread
(xhp/s is not scalable with damage, as CCP Greyscale explained)
MaiLina KaTar
Katar Corp
#198 - 2011-11-21 21:48:04 UTC
This still going? I posted the solution on page 5 already. Read it, think about it, like it, pass it on, cause you know it's awesome.
Esan Vartesa
Samarkand Financial
#199 - 2011-11-21 23:08:49 UTC
Read it, and sorry, don't love it.

The idea that you'd have 500+ ships shooting at you and you tanking it is stupid.

I still think the focus should be on creating a disincentive to everyone attacking the same target.
MaiLina KaTar
Katar Corp
#200 - 2011-11-22 09:01:19 UTC
Esan Vartesa wrote:
Read it, and sorry, don't love it.

No you didn't. It's not even about diminishing returns on volleys in fleet fights.

But y'know what? **** it. With the attention span of like 5 seconds people have in this game and specially on these forums, noone deserves any better than what you get.