Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Make Resist Bonuses only work with Resist Modules like armor/shield comp skill but it would work with active hardeners too and bam there would be some equality, or give ships with a Active Tank Bonus a passive regen bonus like shields only it would work with armor and stack with shield now and that could work too, the first idea would make me bitter because it would be nerfing my absolution, the second idea doesn't seem all that great

Actually, this is the argument. As per the OP: "..but the issue isn't so much that active tanking ships are bad at active tanking (which they aren't), but that being bad at buffer and remote tanking disqualifies them from larger fleet fights." Now it's obviously a silly argument that lacks any basis in reality, as shown by the abundances of Abaddons, Feroxes and Ruptures in fleets, relative to Maelstroms, Feroxes and Moas), but it's the OP's argument, not mine.



So what? Balance ships, not tanks.

Balancing ships that are designed to fill the role of tank requires balancing tanks. A ship's ability to tank is pretty vital to its individual level of balance, so I'm not sure how discussing the tank shouldn't be part of the balancing discussion.

I think the reason this isn't being discussed on a per ship basis (aside from supporting examples) is because the perceived imbalance can be observed across many different ship types. For basically any Gallente or Minmatar ship with an active tank bonus you can point at a passive Amarr or Caldari ship with the same type and role, and say that you think the latter will always have the more versatile tank.

The OP has hyperbolized their argument somewhat, but the fact that active tank bonused ships show up in fleet fights doesn't discount the argument that the passive tank bonused ships have an advantage in that environment. I'd probably be fine with this if it were spottier and the difference less common, but the active vs passive tank philosophies are currently tied to racial flavors, showing up across the board.

The Gallente and Minmatar "tank" ships aren't completely painted into a corner, there are just common situations where they appear hobbled in comparison to their sisters in the same role.

I never commented on the inherent balance of the 5% resist bonuses. Indeed, I would never do so, because this would violate the dictum of "balance ships, not bonuses". CCP's decision to maintain 5% resist bonuses on sub-BS classes supports this position.

In contrast, it is our dear OP who demanded that BS boost/rep bonuses be changed to resist bonuses with scant regard to ship balance, a foolish idea indeed.

We don't know this yet. There is supposedly a new thread on resist bonuses in general coming "soon." I suspect that at least BCs and any resist bonuses above BS size will be getting the 4% treatment. And, possibly the sub-BCs could be getting it too.

Regardless it won't change the imbalance between a cap warfare invulnerable awesome faster cycling boost at beginning of the cycle ASB v a cap warfare vulnerable milktoast slow ass boost at the end of the cycle AAR. So the Hyperion and both Gallente BCs will still suck ass. Active armor drawbacks and the further necessary loss of a mid to a grid hungry cap booster, let alone a second or third grid hungry repper, is not going to become anything worth using imo on anything beyond the frig size.

Actually yes, after seeing the BS change I'd be entirely unsurprised to see BCs lose the 5% resist bonuses for 4% ones. And given the continued power of the Drake and the power of the new Prophecy, it's a reasonable proposal - but it may be rather harsh on the poor Ferox... But I would be surprised to see cruisers and lower follow suit - after all, it's a question of tanking slot availability (well actually one of final resists, but that's the main contributor).

ASBs and AARs - I've hated ASBs from day one because they're not really active-tanking modules! They're simply a "press button, receive buffer" module, where their high boost amount and the inability of an opponent to interfere with rep ability via cap warfare marks them as an unusual form of buffer tanking. And I agree that active armour is still lacklustre on many ships.

I beg to differ. Regular shield boosters and armor repairers are still widely used in their old roles, which are mostly PVE. The long load time on the ASB and the high cost of paste on the AAR make them both inefficient for mission-running, especially when you need a sustained tank.

AARs and ASBs allow rep-bonused ships to use their bonus in PVP in more situations, since the ancillary reppers are best for almost every PVP situation in which you choose to use an on-board repper. But for people who want sustained on-board repair, the old reppers are still king.