These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2012-11-07 22:52:41 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
I just think that all defensively inclined ships should benefit from the versatility the resist bonuses offer. (Or none should, and the resist bonuses should be replaced with HP bonuses).
I think tech 1 ships should more often. Tech 2 ships are supposed to be more specific and could perhaps do well with stronger versions of the single-facet defenses.

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."

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#62 - 2012-11-07 23:28:02 UTC
Do you think it is perhaps possible that CCP doesn't want all of the defensive bonused ships to be equally good at all forms of tanking?

Also, yes I am talking about ships and not bonuses. We have to take the whole ship into consideration, as well as fits. I mean, triple rep myrms are a thing. Clearly the rep bonus isn't that bad.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#63 - 2012-11-08 00:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Quesa wrote:
I didn't read all the replies so forgive me if I missed something.

There are stark differences between the ships you link such as sig radius, speed and other things. If the Ferox is just slightly lower in active tankability then why don't we see more of them? Well, the mobility is probably a large factor there.

You're also completely ignoring the actual combat style of the races. Amarr is supposed to be the brick tank, which is reflected in your analysis by having a huge EHP buffer but that ship also moves at a snails pace. Mini ships are guerrilla warfare and skirmish ships, they get in, shoot and get out - they aren't meant or designed for heavy sustained combat, which is why you see the big differences.

It's all well and good when you correlate these, seemingly meaningful stats, but in practice it's a whole different story by evidence of what people fly and for what they fly them for, not what static EFT numbers are telling you.


Just like Gangname Style said, you completely miss the point of my post.

But ok, so let's have a look at relevant ship usage in medium to large fleets.

Cyclone, Brutix, Myrmidon: Not used, because Hurricane and Harbinger have comparable buffer wither better damage projection, Drake has more buffer and damage projection.
Prophecy: Not used because not enough damage projection and speed.
Ferox: Not used because completely outclassed by Drake (and rails are bad).

Hyperion: Not used because Megathron and Apoc have similar buffer but better damage projection. Abaddon has more buffer and similar damage projection.
Rokh: Not used that much because rails are bad.
Maelstroem: Used because a full rack of arty is just too good. If the tempest had 8 turret slots, the Mael would be just as unloved as the Hyperion.

I know that active tank bonused ships are used in smaller engagements, but the resist bonuses ships can do that just as well, so there is a big imbalance caused by the buffer issue. I know that other factors have an influence on that too (like for the Ferox, Prophecy and Rokh), but that's not the point.

Then again, why are those other, not-so-great boosting-bonus ships being used in smaller gangs or solo over their counterpart? If they are being used in solo PvP yet by your standards not so great then maybe they are actually better than their resistance brothers.

Quote:
Cyclone, Brutix, Myrmidon: Not used, because Hurricane and Harbinger have comparable buffer wither better damage projection, Drake has more buffer and damage projection.
Prophecy: Not used because not enough damage projection and speed.
Ferox: Not used because completely outclassed by Drake (and rails are bad).


-Hurricane is getting adjusted, not sure if it will make much of a difference in your comparison but we'll have to see.

-The problems with the Brutix is Hybrids and drones and the Harbinger problem for smaller, fast moving gangs is it's speed but it's damage projection is fantastic so apparently damage projection or tank isn't the only marker for a great ship to fly.

-Drakes are getting toned down and possibly the tank looked at.

-Prophecy can have good damage projection but it suffers from a resources problem so you have to sacrifice tank for damage.

-Ferox's problem, again, are more of a problem with Hybrids and no EWar when it fits full tank.

-Cyclone we see alot of, they are fast, rep good and put out decent damage. The mere fact that we see more solo Cyclones in the North than we do solo Hurricanes is more proof that something is wrong with your analysis than anything elsebut we'll go on.

Quote:
Hyperion: Not used because Megathron and Apoc have similar buffer but better damage projection. Abaddon has more buffer and similar damage projection.
Rokh: Not used that much because rails are bad.
Maelstroem: Used because a full rack of arty is just too good. If the tempest had 8 turret slots, the Mael would be just as unloved as the Hyperion.


-Hyperions are repairing beasts, you can't compete with it when comparing it to a Megathron. Maybe a Mael with it's bonus but I'm not going to run the number on it. Hyp gets the same Hybrid bonus (albeit another turret slot) as the Mega but lacks a bit in drone damage but most of the time Drones put out less DPS than EFT says. Hyperion slot layout is also a bit better for solo'ing or small gang stuff.

-Apoc has a more robust cap and damage range which both are superior to Abaddon but the Abaddon has a far superior tank to that of an Apoc. Abaddon does suffer horribly from the cap and all but required to run with a booster. Standard fleet fits have shown time and time again that the Apoc does not compete, even in the slightest, to the Abaddon tank but Abaddon is slow as [email protected]#k, cap restricted and medium effective range.

-Rokhs are replacing Maels as alpha fleet doctrine so this statement, "Rokh: Not used that much because rails are bad.", just tells me you don't have any idea what's actually happening to fleet comps. Rails are amazing and by that statement I mean LARGE Rails are amazing. The Rokh also has a fantastic buffer. Arties will still continue to be great due to extremely and way overdone alpha and tracking for the weapon system. Maels would not be replaced with Tempests because you can get more buffer on a Mael than a Tempest. Tempests would be seen more if they had 8 turret slots but an all out replacement to Maels, no.

I think you are looking at this issue with such inexperience and raw stats from EFT that you can't see what's actually happening and WHY. Yes, there are ships that have problems; prophecy and ferox but those problems aren't centered around it's tank, medium hybrids are really bad and the prophecy has limited ship resources to be a complete brick the way it is now.
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-11-08 03:00:32 UTC
Your biggest problem is you're looking at one aspect of ship and balance design without taking into account the multiple other aspects of the game which are essential to said ship and game balance. You can't have the tunnel vision you have when looking at overall game balance.

Again, you can't wholeheartedly ignore a massive portion of game balance because your raw-stat research tells you that buffer > active.
Super Stallion
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-11-08 03:30:42 UTC
I do not see damage reduced by the increased speed of active tanked ships mentioned. ships with armor resist bonused hulls often equip plates, these plates slow down the ship. So, while they end up taking an increased amount of damage. Active tanked hulls do not suffer from this... as much.

I do not see the effect of signature radius for buffer shield tanked hulls taken into account either. When you decide to buffer shield tank, you are also deciding to increase your signature radius. Even though you often have hull based resistance bonuses, your signature can jump up to the next class of ships size, with MWD... itll jump up two ship sizes.

I agree that you are focusing in on one stat, and ignoring other stats.

as far as im concerned, the only true reason for buffer tanking fleet ships is so that you have at least some sort of a chance to survive an alpha/beta attack before remote reps kick in. And if alpha isnt an issue, I prefer the damage reduction due to mobility that an active tank offers. Because, mobility has many other advantages associated with it as well.
Mr John Smith
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-11-08 05:05:14 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Do you think it is perhaps possible that CCP doesn't want all of the defensive bonused ships to be equally good at all forms of tanking?

Also, yes I am talking about ships and not bonuses. We have to take the whole ship into consideration, as well as fits. I mean, triple rep myrms are a thing. Clearly the rep bonus isn't that bad.



Clearly the fact that CCP is in the process of this whole "tericide" thing indicates that they don't actually like it when some ships don't get used. Even if some ships are supposed to be used in different ways it doesn't change the numbers. A resistance bonus is only slightly worse than a dedicated active tank bonus for a ship with local reps, and is far and away better for every other style of tanking.

If you want to talk about the ship rather than the bonus you need to acknowledge that when it comes to a rebalancing of ships, if you plan to keep the bonuses as they are, some ships will either need to be disproportionately buffed or nerfed to compensate for their ****** defensive bonuses.
While CCP may yet decide to do this, it is far from the global optimal solution to this problem.

...this is also the reason why OP has tried to keep the discussion on 2 ship bonus styles verses each other rather than moving the discussion to a more micro level of ship vs ship. Ships will always have individual quirks, and that is good. But I think it is wrong to try and argue that these individual quirks make up for what is - and lets be honest here - a very ****** bonus.
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#67 - 2012-11-08 06:53:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Viribus
Jesus mary and joseph 90% of the people didn't even begin to understand the (very simple) point of the OP before replying

My personal favourites are the people that respond to a balance problem with fluff about how the amarr are blah blah blah and gallente are supposed to xyz because they're space frenchmen or something. Totally pointless to add.

The goddamn Rhodes scholars in this thread can't even understand a basic concept like "resist bonuses are just as good for active tanking as rep bonuses, while also allowing much greater buffer"

And these are the forums that CCP reads for balance ideas. It all makes sense now
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2012-11-08 08:11:33 UTC
This thread would find more support if it

a) recognized that different ships are supposed to excel in different roles and situations and their bonuses reflect that.
b) didn't ask for homogenization
c) actually made a comprehensive analysis rather than zeroing in on one aspect in one specific situation
d) led to some discussion on how to make active tanking bonuses more relevant (I think everyone already knows and agrees that they aren't so useful)
Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-11-08 08:59:47 UTC
Viribus wrote:
Jesus mary and joseph 90% of the people didn't even begin to understand the (very simple) point of the OP before replying

My personal favourites are the people that respond to a balance problem with fluff about how the amarr are blah blah blah and gallente are supposed to xyz because they're space frenchmen or something. Totally pointless to add.

The goddamn Rhodes scholars in this thread can't even understand a basic concept like "resist bonuses are just as good for active tanking as rep bonuses, while also allowing much greater buffer"

And these are the forums that CCP reads for balance ideas. It all makes sense now

That's because you can't call 1 aspect of ship or ship bonus imbalanced without looking at the whole picture, which the OP conveniently ignores and you are cheer-leading coupled by the fact that people fly those rep bonused ships over the resist bonused w/ rep.

The different fighting styles of the races are not pointless, it's only pointless to someone who wants to focus in on a single aspect of a massive balancing act because their raw stats from EFT tell them it's imbalanced yet ignore practice. You can be an academic all you want but when practice tells you you're wrong, you can't just tell everyone else they are wrong because look at these numbers I got from EFT!!

EFT is a guideline and anyone with actual experience will tell you those numbers don't always work out the way you want them too. The EHP numbers don't take into account various things like transversal, sig radius and hell, damage type received, it's assuming everything is perfectly setup and rainbow damage which is so far from actual reality I'm having trouble believing that I have to explain this to you.
TehCloud
Guardians of the Dodixie
#70 - 2012-11-08 11:30:07 UTC
imho ships like the myrmidon with active rep bonus should also get a small armor resistance bonus (like 2-3%).

More Resistances and thus more EHP should improve their performance in both solo/smallscale and bigger fleets.
Also if Active tanked makes them a little bit stronger against neuting.

My Condor costs less than that module!

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-11-08 11:49:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Quesa wrote:
EFT is a guideline and anyone with actual experience will tell you those numbers don't always work out the way you want them too. The EHP numbers don't take into account various things like transversal, sig radius and hell, damage type received, it's assuming everything is perfectly setup and rainbow damage which is so far from actual reality I'm having trouble believing that I have to explain this to you.
Actually, EFT will take these values into account when you enter them, at least some anyway. And they're working on improving its features.

But you're right overall. What the OP is really getting at though is just that the difference is so dramatic that it could be assumed that people who fly the ships with the bonus to repair or boost speed and try to make the fullest use of that specific bonus will still agree that the resist bonus would be better even in their own unique situation. And as a person who has flown both kinds, I strongly agree. It's not taking into account ship balance and other factors, but I have a feeling that when those ships were given the repair bonuses, they weren't intentionally made to be weaker than the resist bonus. I'm pretty certain they were simply supposed to be unique. And for that reason, the OP has a point.

Just because people fly a lot of drakes doesn't mean they prefer resists--but just because people fly more brutixes and cyclones than prophecies and feroxes doesn't mean they don't. I agree-from experience flying these ships-that the resist bonus is far superior to the repair bonus and needs to be balanced. Then the ships themselves ought to be balanced around the balanced skill bonuses.

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."

Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-11-08 13:10:16 UTC
Yes, EFT can do some of these features but I highly doubt the OP took the time to venture into these features due to the poor handling of overall bonus.

I too have done my fair share of solo and small gang warfare along with a healthy dose of large fleet combat. I can say that there are some boats that just outperform others, it's just the way of Eve. I've seen Hyperions pull off stuff I thought I'd never see and definitely would never see a Mega do. I've had a ton of fun using a tripple-rep Myrm pullin off some riduculous stuff that a Drake couldn't handle and a Cyclone tanking enemies just long enough to kill my target and burn out due to my speed.

Of course high-resist ships have a bonus when in med/large scale fleet fights due to logistics, it's pretty easy to see that and to compare that type of tank to an active with no resist is asinine. The OP suggested that those resist bonused ships with local repair mods are so close to the active repair bonused ships despite what actually happens in small/solo scale pvp, aside from the buffer gank fits which, again, is a completely different style.

The point is, the game evolves, styles are different and yes, active tanking needs some help but the **** poor analysis that the OP did ignores the other 90% of balancing which absolutely cannot happen. Then he and his cheer-leaders scold people for pointing it out, it's called close-mindedness.

What the OP is suggesting is homogenization which is the last thing this game needs, especially when we are knee deep in a huge ship re-balancing cycle where CCP is solidifying roles for ships, ie. less homogenization.
mine mi
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-11-08 13:26:13 UTC
My idea is

Amarr resist bonus

Gallente hitpoints bonus

caldari resist bonus

minmatar shield boost.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-11-08 13:45:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Quesa wrote:
The OP suggested that those resist bonused ships with local repair mods are so close to the active repair bonused ships despite what actually happens in small/solo scale pvp, aside from the buffer gank fits which, again, is a completely different style.
No, I think the OP has a point. Initially the discussion was about fleet command ships. Even if defense on other ships are all varying playstyles, fleet command ships are always meant to be in large-scale combat. And large-scale combat requires buffer. The Eos and Claymore's on-board rep bonus is virtually useless. In fact it's even less useful than the OP was saying. The only reason the Claymore gets by in large-scale pvp is because it's sleek and fast. But it still effectively has only 3 skill bonuses.

So whether or not the OP was particularly knowledgeable or experienced with the subject is much less the point here. The OP is still right.

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."

Quesa
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-11-08 16:44:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Quesa
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
fleet command ships are always meant to be in large-scale combat.
This is an incorrect assumption. I can't even begin to count the number of times a ship has been used out of it's normally accepted role in this game. That's usually how new doctrines come about, someone thinks up of a new way to fit or fly a ship, presto - new fleet comp that is outside the norm for that ship. The difference between field and fleet CS ships is the number of links they can run without command processors. Field command ships being able to utilize 1 and fleet command ships being able to use 3.

You also pretty much agreed that there is more to balancing than just resists vs local-rep boni by saying, "the Claymore gets by in large-scale pvp is because it's sleek and fast." You can say that bonus is wasted in large scale fleet fights, and I'd agree but to say it is wasted as a whole would be intellectually dishonest and factually false.

It's been pretty clear to all parties that local-rep ships don't do well in large scale fleet fights but that doesn't mean you can't take them. Additionally, they are revamping the CS class ships after this next expansion.
Viribus
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#76 - 2012-11-08 18:28:01 UTC
Quesa wrote:

That's because you can't call 1 aspect of ship or ship bonus imbalanced without looking at the whole picture, which the OP conveniently ignores and you are cheer-leading coupled by the fact that people fly those rep bonused ships over the resist bonused w/ rep.

The different fighting styles of the races are not pointless, it's only pointless to someone who wants to focus in on a single aspect of a massive balancing act because their raw stats from EFT tell them it's imbalanced yet ignore practice. You can be an academic all you want but when practice tells you you're wrong, you can't just tell everyone else they are wrong because look at these numbers I got from EFT!!

EFT is a guideline and anyone with actual experience will tell you those numbers don't always work out the way you want them too. The EHP numbers don't take into account various things like transversal, sig radius and hell, damage type received, it's assuming everything is perfectly setup and rainbow damage which is so far from actual reality I'm having trouble believing that I have to explain this to you.


What you're obviously not understanding is that this thread has an incredibly straightforward premise, that resist bonuses are objectively better in every possible way than rep bonuses, and you still go ahead with the knee-jerk "well it's just EFT warrioring" cookiecutter response that literally every post that tries to explain its premise with figures gets.

Talking about how EHP doesn't take into account sig radius and transversal and stuff has absolutely nothing to do a discussion about how active tanking bonuses are objectively worse in every conceiveable situation for fleet command ships, especially considering they're an obligate fleet ship (it's even in the name). You just throw this non-sequitur bullshit out to make yourself seem like a seasoned elite pvper who has transcended the need for facts and figures, despite it having no relevance to the discussion.

Also, the Damnation has a smaller sig than the Eos in addition to having double the EHP, so I guess you're just wrong all over the place
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#77 - 2012-11-08 18:56:52 UTC
mine mi wrote:
My idea is

Amarr resist bonus

Gallente hitpoints bonus

caldari resist bonus

minmatar shield boost.


Ugh

So you want Amarr and Caldari to be completely better than Gallente and Minmatar. I love your creative approach to balancing...Roll

"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

Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#78 - 2012-11-08 19:37:18 UTC
I honestly do not think I can disagree with the op any more.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#79 - 2012-11-08 20:53:01 UTC
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
I honestly do not think I can disagree with the op any more.


So..? Don't be lazy, give us your input!

"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

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#80 - 2012-11-08 20:53:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
I think you've done an excellent analysis... I'm sorry a lot of people miss your point. It would help if the first lines of your post gave a concise TL DR pointing out exactly what this topic is about:

Resist Bonuses reduce the incoming damage to a vessel. As such, they are useful in all tanking scenarios, be it buffer tanking, active tanking, or remote rep tanking. In comparison, the other (secondary) "tanking" bonuses are simply inferior to a resist bonus because:

1.) The Secondary tanking bonuses pigeonhole ships into a specific type of tanking. Example, the myrm's rep bonus is completely useless if you don't fit any armor reppers. In comparison, the Drake's resist bonus is ALWAYS useful.... because it ALWAYS reduces the incoming damage to the ship.

2.) The Secondary tanking bonuses are in near perfect balance with resist bonuses. For example, a Punisher, when fit with a small armor repper will rep the same Effective Amount as an Incursus. A Drake, when fit with equivalent shield boosters and resist mods will rep the same effective amount as a Cyclone or Ferox. A Prophecy, when fit with equivalent armor reppers and resist mods, will rep the same amount as a Brutix or Myrmidon.

In short, since resist bonuses are "balanced" with active tanking bonuses, they provide a large versatility in tanking options that all active tanking ships lack.

Here are some options on how to fix this:
A.) Rebalance active tanking bonuses to give them a distinct ADVANTAGE to active tanking. If the incursus effectively repped 50% more than the punisher, then its pigeonholed bonus wouldn't matter so much, because it would be superior when fulfilling that role.

B.) Replace all active tank bonuses with resistance bonuses. Given the current state of balance between active tanking bonuses and resist bonuses, this would be universally fair. Unfortunately, it would also homogenize the races, which I'm not a fan of at ALL.

C.) Replace resist bonuses with a buffer bonus. While this would pigeonhole those ships into specific tanking options (not so good), it would maintain a heterogeneity between the races (good) and it would limit the effectiveness of RR (good).

D.) Make ships with resists bonuses unbalanced in another way. For example, the Prophecy might only get 15 slots compared to the brutix's 16. The Abbadon might only get 18 slots compared to 19 on the Hyperion. Slot layout is one manner in which to "balance bonuses" that CCP uses for "drone boats". There are other options too.