These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Ship balancing] Why active tank bonuses are plain worse than resist bonuses

Author
Plyn
Uncharted.
#221 - 2013-04-07 21:45:47 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
No, it doesn't. You're still missing the fundamental points that ships should be balanced, not bonuses, and that non-resist-bonused ships are well represented on the fleet scale. Stop this silly theorycrafting and deal with reality. The problem exists solely in your imagination.

Saying that non resist bonused ships are represented is a bit of a red herring here. The argument isn't that resist bonuses are king and every ship that doesn't have them is trash. The argument is that resist and rep bonused ships fall into the same category of "Ships which are designed to be tankier than average". The roles these ships should be filling are supposed to be similar or the same, just differing in their racial "flavor". It is argued that one side of this category appears to be a lot better than the other.
SilentStryder
#222 - 2013-04-08 00:59:56 UTC  |  Edited by: SilentStryder
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
StrongSmartSexy
Phenix Revolution
#223 - 2013-04-08 05:57:22 UTC  |  Edited by: StrongSmartSexy
With regards to the Tier 3 battleships, some people are offering the counter-argument that the ships need to be analysed as a whole package rather than comparing the superiority of resists over active tank bonuses.
Yet no one backs up this claim with any kind of evidence that shows that the maelstrom or hyperion have significant buffs in other areas (that the abbadon and rokh do not) which offset their huge inflexibility to do buffer or remote rep fits.

These rests % vs active tank % comparisons are fair because they aren't based on different ship classes (e.g. maller cruiser vs hyperion battleship) but the racial ships of a single class of a single tier. Resist bonuses clearly trump active tank bonuses because of versatility.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#224 - 2013-04-08 10:50:46 UTC
Plyn wrote:
Saying that non resist bonused ships are represented is a bit of a red herring here. The argument isn't that resist bonuses are king and every ship that doesn't have them is trash.


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.

Plyn wrote:
The argument is that resist and rep bonused ships fall into the same category of "Ships which are designed to be tankier than average". The roles these ships should be filling are supposed to be similar or the same, just differing in their racial "flavor". It is argued that one side of this category appears to be a lot better than the other.


So what? Balance ships, not tanks.
androch
LitlCorp
The Watchmen.
#225 - 2013-04-08 11:40:12 UTC
**** with my shield boost bonuses and i will hunt you down and make sure you are strung up by your mouse cord
Plyn
Uncharted.
#226 - 2013-04-08 14:24:57 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
...
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.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2013-04-08 16:20:13 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:


So what? Balance ships, not tanks.


Well Gypsio, it seems as usual you don't know what you are talking about. Resistance bonus are being nerfed from 5% to 4% per level as an admittance that the bonus WAS overpowred. Get off your baddie highchair and stop spouting BS please.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#228 - 2013-04-08 17:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Askulf Joringer wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:


So what? Balance ships, not tanks.


Well Gypsio, it seems as usual you don't know what you are talking about. Resistance bonus are being nerfed from 5% to 4% per level as an admittance that the bonus WAS overpowred. Get off your baddie highchair and stop spouting BS please.


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.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#229 - 2013-04-08 17:13:19 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
Askulf Joringer wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:


So what? Balance ships, not tanks.


Well Gypsio, it seems as usual you don't know what you are talking about. Resistance bonus are being nerfed from 5% to 4% per level as an admittance that the bonus WAS overpowred. Get off your baddie highchair and stop spouting BS please.


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.


It will be changed to 4% soon enough, mark my word.
Lili Lu
#230 - 2013-04-08 17:16:49 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
CCP's decision to maintain 5% resist bonuses on sub-BS classes supports this position.

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 bothWhat? 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.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#231 - 2013-04-08 17:20:16 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
CCP's decision to maintain 5% resist bonuses on sub-BS classes supports this position.

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 bothWhat? 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.


To be fair, Triple Rep Myrms and Hyperions including an AAR are beasts, because the two t2 reps can keep them alive while the nanite paste reloads. But overall, you are right. I am quite disappointed buy AAR outside of triple rep fits.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#232 - 2013-04-08 17:35:25 UTC
Lili Lu wrote:
Gypsio III wrote:
CCP's decision to maintain 5% resist bonuses on sub-BS classes supports this position.

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.


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.
Askulf Joringer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2013-04-08 18:10:34 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:


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.


here here Gypsio, ASBs have been a massive mistake from day one. While they did "spice up fitting options" they did so in a way that essentially removed content via the introduction of simply better modules. It's extremely rare that you see people fitting Shield boosters of any form on any pvp ship other than ASBs. The end result was essentially the opposite of CCP's original intention of introducing a wider variety of viable setups.

In conclusion, ASBs should never, ever, never have been implemented and their introduction has marked a new era of CCP incompetence imo.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2013-04-10 03:45:40 UTC
Askulf Joringer wrote:
here here Gypsio, ASBs have been a massive mistake from day one. While they did "spice up fitting options" they did so in a way that essentially removed content via the introduction of simply better modules. It's extremely rare that you see people fitting Shield boosters of any form on any pvp ship other than ASBs. The end result was essentially the opposite of CCP's original intention of introducing a wider variety of viable setups.

In conclusion, ASBs should never, ever, never have been implemented and their introduction has marked a new era of CCP incompetence imo.
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.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#235 - 2013-04-12 18:50:29 UTC

Bump... because the information in this thread is EXTREMELY relevant to the dev post about reducing resists bonuses from 5% to 4%
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#236 - 2013-04-13 13:29:51 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

Bump... because the information in this thread is EXTREMELY relevant to the dev post about reducing resists bonuses from 5% to 4%


The discussion continues here.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed

Plyn
Uncharted.
#237 - 2013-04-14 22:39:01 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:


Well, if you have 99% resistance, and are shot at by a gun dealing 200 damage, you take 2 points of damage.
If you have 99,5% resistance, and are shot at by a gun dealing 200 damage, you take 1 point of damage.

You basically halve the amount of damage taken. I don't see this as a waste of a module.


Fair enough.

But still...

1) A lot of missions run longer than 6 minutes (using the prophecy/myr example. +/- for other contrasts)
2) A lot of people return to stations in the middle of a mission, which instantly makes armor rep bonuses win, since they "break even" with resist bonuses in about 20 seconds when you are repping but nobody is shooting at you.

So if nothing else, armor rep bonus ships are better for tanking missions than resist ones are.


Hate arguments like this. Almost any ship can tank appropriate PvE situations fine because you know the incoming damage types beforehand, and can therefore super resist those types in preparation. So, since both t1 cruisers can complete the same mission in the same amount of time, without returning to station because having a resist bonused ship doesn't mean you shouldn't still fit reppers, neither is really better at PvE, just have to be fit in slightly different ways.

Also, making huge swathes of ships from certain races inferior at large aspects of PvP because they are better at PvE (not really, see above paragraph) only paints players into corners about what parts of the game they are allowed to participate in. This is obviously not the real intention of the devs.