These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

How to fix armor tanking

Author
Charles Baker
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-08-28 23:35:36 UTC
Swap the speed drawback for an agility one.

Fixed.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#2 - 2012-08-28 23:54:29 UTC
Charles Baker wrote:
Swap the speed drawback for an agility one.

Fixed.


Most Armor tanks already have an agility drawback.... If you fit a plate, you increase your ships mass, which negatively impacts your align time...
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#3 - 2012-08-29 00:05:02 UTC
How about sacrifice shield hp. I don't care so much about why it would do this, but a few hundred shield hp would be worth the lack of speed loss.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-08-29 00:18:44 UTC
I find it funny that the most common form of tanking is considered broken as soon as a decent shield module comes out. Speed isn’t an issue if you have range. The problem is not armor tanking, the problem is short range combat and (buffer) armor tanking. Meanwhile, medium and long range combat is oddly reserved for specialized ships (and those aren’t even Caldari). EVE favors close range PvP far too much.
Charles Baker
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-08-29 00:20:12 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
I find it funny that the most common form of tanking is considered broken as soon as a decent shield module comes out. Speed isn’t an issue if you have range. The problem is not armor tanking, the problem is short range combat and (buffer) armor tanking. Meanwhile, medium and long range combat is oddly reserved for specialized ships (and those aren’t even Caldari). EVE favors close range PvP far too much.


Blasters + Buffer Armor = Dead ship, too bad half of Gallente ships are optimised for this, yet it's a form of PVP where they will be completely outclassed.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-08-29 00:43:08 UTC
Charles Baker wrote:
Blasters + Buffer Armor = Dead ship, too bad half of Gallente ships are optimised for this, yet it's a form of PVP where they will be completely outclassed.

Amarr favors buffer armor tanking (better bonuses, more low slots, more armor) and has the medium range to support it. CCP tried to give active armor tanking a boost with the new module, which would have done more for the Gallente (active tank bonuses) than the Amarr (who need the cap). Medium range and buffer armor tank is not a problem.

I say there needs to be an ASB-like armor module that only gets the bonus when overheated. More cap use, lower rep w/o heat than a normal module, and burns out faster too. With A DCU and Gallente structure you could go down to structure, turn off the MWD, turn on the new module, and come back swinging. If the ship has the rep bonus, that’s all the better.

I think normal active tanking modules, esp. shield, could use a boost (or less penalties).
Charles Baker
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2012-08-29 00:48:51 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
Charles Baker wrote:
Blasters + Buffer Armor = Dead ship, too bad half of Gallente ships are optimised for this, yet it's a form of PVP where they will be completely outclassed.

Amarr favors buffer armor tanking (better bonuses, more low slots, more armor) and has the medium range to support it. CCP tried to give active armor tanking a boost with the new module, which would have done more for the Gallente (active tank bonuses) than the Amarr (who need the cap). Medium range and buffer armor tank is not a problem.

I say there needs to be an ASB-like armor module that only gets the bonus when overheated. More cap use, lower rep w/o heat than a normal module, and burns out faster too. With A DCU and Gallente structure you could go down to structure, turn off the MWD, turn on the new module, and come back swinging. If the ship has the rep bonus, that’s all the better.

I think normal active tanking modules, esp. shield, could use a boost (or less penalties).


Couple that with the insanely high Cap use of Hybrids compared to Projectiles? without a serious overhaul Gallente Blasterboats will forever suck.
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#8 - 2012-08-29 01:24:42 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
I find it funny that the most common form of tanking is considered broken as soon as a decent shield module comes out. Speed isn’t an issue if you have range. The problem is not armor tanking, the problem is short range combat and (buffer) armor tanking. Meanwhile, medium and long range combat is oddly reserved for specialized ships (and those aren’t even Caldari). EVE favors close range PvP far too much.



Armor tanking has been less viable in small gang/solo work way before the ASB's

And decreasing Agility does NOT fix the problem..

Align time is life.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Katalci
Catgirl Courtesan Club
#9 - 2012-08-29 01:42:28 UTC
it's not broken
Kitt JT
True North.
#10 - 2012-08-29 05:07:34 UTC
Armour tanking not broken.

No fix needed.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#11 - 2012-08-29 07:50:31 UTC
what is broken?
Sigras
Conglomo
#12 - 2012-08-29 08:32:48 UTC
Rank Ships Kills
1 Drake 348309
2 Tengu 213106
3 Maelstrom 172152
4 Zealot 90305
5 Hurricane 69378
6 Huginn 65962
7 Tornado 65160
8 Rokh 53759
9 Oracle 42323
10 Scimitar 42108
11 Naga 40940
12 Lachesis 34499
13 Thrasher 33937
14 Hound 30539
15 Sabre 27942
16 Rifter 27498
17 Merlin 24749
18 Cynabal 23799
19 Capsule 23166
20 Manticore 22882

of those top 20 ships, two of them typically armor tank, and even the oracle is questionable because ive seen more shield than armor fits for it.

im sorry, whats not broken?

Shields are better in most situations because they can fit extra damage mods, and they have the speed advantage. This means that they usually have the option of disengaging. They never have to commit to a fight

Now of course in cases where speed isnt usually an issue (non blaster battleships, cap ships) armor is preferred because the drawbacks are basically parts of the ships anyway, or in fringe cases like the AHAC gang.

Im not saying that shield tanking is always better, but it is definitely more conducive to the risk averse which is basically everyone.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#13 - 2012-08-29 10:32:47 UTC
Sigras wrote:

19 Capsule 23166

top 20 ships


Your list is stupid. If you stopped and thought about it for a second, you'd understand the main reason why... oh and by the way, seems that the capsule is the 19th most deadly ship in the game.

Give me a break.
RFD commander
Incendiary Lemons
#14 - 2012-08-29 11:08:59 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Sigras wrote:

19 Capsule 23166

top 20 ships


Your list is stupid. If you stopped and thought about it for a second, you'd understand the main reason why... oh and by the way, seems that the capsule is the 19th most deadly ship in the game.

Give me a break.


Its based on how killmails work, if you shoot someone then get destroyed before they do you will appear on that persons killmail in a pod.
Nestara Aldent
Citimatics
#15 - 2012-08-29 11:50:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Nestara Aldent
Obsidiana wrote:
Charles Baker wrote:
Blasters + Buffer Armor = Dead ship, too bad half of Gallente ships are optimised for this, yet it's a form of PVP where they will be completely outclassed.

Amarr favors buffer armor tanking (better bonuses, more low slots, more armor) and has the medium range to support it. CCP tried to give active armor tanking a boost with the new module, which would have done more for the Gallente (active tank bonuses) than the Amarr (who need the cap). Medium range and buffer armor tank is not a problem.

I say there needs to be an ASB-like armor module that only gets the bonus when overheated. More cap use, lower rep w/o heat than a normal module, and burns out faster too. With A DCU and Gallente structure you could go down to structure, turn off the MWD, turn on the new module, and come back swinging. If the ship has the rep bonus, that’s all the better.

I think normal active tanking modules, esp. shield, could use a boost (or less penalties).


Putting races into roles (RPG 'class' system) is harmful, yet its what CCP did so far. IMO every race should have ships viable for all the roles (skirmishing in small gangs, or ships with significant buffer and projection fro large scale fights), yet remain distinctive, and have weak and strong points.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#16 - 2012-08-29 12:38:07 UTC
RFD commander wrote:
Its based on how killmails work, if you shoot someone then get destroyed before they do you will appear on that persons killmail in a pod.


I am aware of how it works. The DRAEK being so high on that list has nothing to do with shield tanking being good, bad or just different, and everything to do with large alliances choosing to use it en mass. You'll also notice that the top two ships share something else in common... Heavy missiles. But I'm sure this is just coincidence.
Sigras
Conglomo
#17 - 2012-08-29 16:45:01 UTC
I love how you checked out the list and didnt make any arguments against the actual content of the post . . .

lets try this again.

Sigras wrote:
Shields are better in most situations because they can fit extra damage mods, and they have the speed advantage. This means that they usually have the option of disengaging. They never have to commit to a fight

Now of course in cases where speed isnt usually an issue (non blaster battleships, cap ships) armor is preferred because the drawbacks are basically parts of the ships anyway, or in fringe cases like the AHAC gang.

Im not saying that shield tanking is always better, but it is definitely more conducive being risk averse which is basically everyone's desire.

The main problem with a shield ship fighting an armor ship of the same size is the shield tanker asks himself "how long do I have before I have to run away?"
The armor tanker asks himself "how long do I have before I blow up?"

That and mid slots can be farmed out to specialized ships to free up more tank for the entire fleet. IE dedicated tackle ships allow the ships of the line to not fit tackle freeing up more slots for tank.

I would also argue that utility lows are far better than utility mids.
Corteztkiller
Trivium
#18 - 2012-08-29 16:46:23 UTC
I have to agree with the guy above. The top 20 list doesn't fit here. The only reason ships show up on that list is if they are used by CFC, SOCO, or DOTBROS. If they aren't used by one of the big power blocs they won't show up. That being said active armor tanks are much worse than active shield tanks and personally I would like to see that change.

The T2 plate buff is going to do a lot for armor buffer tanks so in that sense armor just recently received a buff although not an active tank buff.
Selaya Ataru
Phalanx Solutions
#19 - 2012-08-29 18:15:09 UTC
Corteztkiller wrote:
I have to agree with the guy above. The top 20 list doesn't fit here. The only reason ships show up on that list is if they are used by CFC, SOCO, or DOTBROS. If they aren't used by one of the big power blocs they won't show up. That being said active armor tanks are much worse than active shield tanks and personally I would like to see that change.

The T2 plate buff is going to do a lot for armor buffer tanks so in that sense armor just recently received a buff although not an active tank buff.


Powerblocs fly ships based on performance so their use of ships is in fact an indicator.

The problem with armor is that shield tanks just got a massive buff with the new ASBs with the nice side effect of making active armor tanks absolutely useless again.

Armor tanking got a module that drains too much cap and needs time to adapt to incomming damage. Its just not usefull for anything smaller than a capital, especially since most of the armor tanking ships in eve already use weapons that require cap.
Obsidiana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-08-29 19:02:53 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Armor tanking has been less viable in small gang/solo work way before the ASB's
And decreasing Agility does NOT fix the problem..
Align time is life.
Been playing EVE for a long time. Shield tanking was scoffed at for most of it. Ravens used to be good before the missile changes. The Drake has been the exception (it will be getting changed).

Charles Baker wrote:
Couple that with the insanely high Cap use of Hybrids compared to Projectiles? without a serious overhaul Gallente Blasterboats will forever suck.
You can’t expect to use the highest damage ammo, with the most cap use, and expect to win the cap war. Hybrid ammo needs to be looked at (it did wonders for Minmatar). The MWD needs to get turned off too.

Nestara Aldent wrote:
Putting races into roles (RPG 'class' system) is harmful, yet its what CCP did so far. IMO every race should have ships viable for all the roles (skirmishing in small gangs, or ships with significant buffer and projection fro large scale fights), yet remain distinctive, and have weak and strong points.
Playing to the strength of the race does not exclude others. Right now CCP is using tiericide to move roles to ships, with races having the same roles. And I agree that CCP needs to include roles such as solo, small gang, and full fleet PvP. (People have been complaining about the Caldari not having a solo PvP ship for years.)

Sigras wrote:
of those top 20 ships, two of them typically armor tank, and even the oracle is questionable because ive seen more shield than armor fits for it.
im sorry, whats not broken?
Shields are better in most situations because they can fit extra damage mods, and they have the speed advantage. This means that they usually have the option of disengaging. They never have to commit to a fight.
If you use shields, you can’t fit a proper tackle. If you fit a proper tackle, you can’t shield tank.
A lot of these ships are really speed tanking.

If you take a look at that board over time, you will see the Cane leading sometimes, the Abaddon pretty high up, the gradual rise of the Tengu, a glimmer and fade of Gallente, and few Caldari ships (save the Drake). The Rohk and Naga were considered laughable. The Minmatar dominate throughout.

These stats don’t factor in new-ship-syndrome either. In fact, they lack a lot of information: fleet size, system sec, wardecs, etc. You can’t even tell if logistics were involved. And how about the other side: the victims?

I like how CCP Fozzie put it:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Drakes and Tengus are a balance problem at the moment, believe me when I say we understand that.

But if anything I feel we need to rely less on eve-wide module and ship stats like those available on eve-kill or in our more accurate internal tools. We can track every single module activation in eve but there's a big difference between having those numbers and understanding them. Context matters much more and if you were to rely too much on those numbers you might for instance think that the Talos needs a huge buff (which is obviously not true when you step back from the numbers).


Btw, thanks for all the replies. Good points all. Hope my counter points were at least interesting.
123Next page