These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#161 - 2013-01-15 19:31:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
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.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#162 - 2013-01-15 19:32:49 UTC
Roime wrote:
I agree with the OP about the better versatility of resist bonuses, but there is one fact about rep bonus which is sort of hidden bby EFT EHP-calculations and those applied to reps:

You don't repair hp/s in game. It's an abstraction.

Using Proph and Myrm with T2 Med Repper for this example, now what happens in reality is this:

Prophecy takes less incoming damage due to higher resists. It's reppers rep as much as on say, Ferox. Which in case of medium reppers is not a lot, infact it's nothing, 320 HP every 9 seconds (make it shorter, you want to, reps happen at the end of the cycle ffs!). The difference is 25% from whatever is between base resists and 100%. (for example BC V raises base armor EM resist from 50% to 62.5%).

Myrmidon takes more damage, all other things being equal... but it's reppers rep 1.375 times more raw hitpoints per cycle. 440 HP per cycle to be exact. Cycle time stays the same, 9 seconds.

Now the kicker is the fact that neither DPS exists on Tranquility. Guns shoot in volleys every X seconds, so what you get is for example 4500 points (-your resists) of damage every 4.5 seconds, which simulates a Blastos in this example. Scary, I know. It does hurt. We'll simplify this to pure Kinetic dmg because ~too many maths~.

Now let's start piling those MAR IIs and resist modules on our ships, and we'll find out why there is a legend called Triple Rep Myrm, but nobody ever flies a triple rep Proph because in active tanking the resist bonus is not as good as rep bonus when actually cycling the modules, even tho it looks equal in EFT.

Myrm, 3xMAR II: 1320 per cycle
Prop, 3xMAR II: 960 per cycle

Difference is more than one MAR II on raw HP level, 360 HP.

I addition to three reppers, we slap a DCU II and two EANM IIs on both ships, and assume all V skills.

Proph has 71.9% against Kinetic. so 1265 points of damage are reduced from our Prophs armor every 4.5 seconds.
Myrm has 67.6%, against Kinetic, so 1458 points of damage are reduced from our Myrms armor every 4.5 seconds.

Difference in received damage is only 193 HP.

Meaning that the Myrm is 167 HP ahead because it can rep more in one go - in theory, in practice getting any benefits this means that you need to time your reps right, but due to to the nature of EVE's hit formula and the human element, your cycles and incoming volleys are never synced like they are in EFT calculations, resulting in a situation where the ability to repair a larger chunk of received damage is superior to receiving less damage. If the volleys and reps are in perfect sync, there is very little difference between resist and rep bonus, like EFT says.

But the practical TQ difference is further highlighted by Exile (%-bonus to rep amount) and gang links (cycle time reduction) to an extent where Myrmidon pulls ahead also in the theoretical EFT hp/s calculation.

This is also why flying a multirepper tank highlights piloting skill, is insanely fun and can lead to priceless sensations of triumph.

Only question remains if the actual repping bonus % per level is enough, I say no, as in our example where both ships woudl have exploded rather promptly :D

10% per level would highlight the difference and promote the Art of Active Tanking, which I think is good for the game by virtue of enabling thrilling engagements for both parties.

(sorry for terrible sentences, no time to make this a blog post)


False.

1. Raw HP are irrelevant.
2. Myrmidon has a racial resist bonus against kinetic damage.
3. Speaking of timing, you forget to mention that the additional buffer granted by the resist bonus grants more time for the cycles to actually land before you die.
4. You completely ignore the major point of the post : active tanking bonuses only help with active tanking, while resist bonuses help also help with buffer and remote tanking.

"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
#163 - 2013-01-15 19:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
True, but what if/when MAR's and LAR's are brought up to par with SAR's and those 600dps tanked comes from one permanent + one intermittent cycled repper?

Until we have a better idea of what is planned for armour tanking, theorizing about and asking for larger bonuses is rather futile. Hell, for all we know the amount bonus could benefit from becoming a cap bonus when all is said and done Smile


Going to agree with you that buffing to 10% per level is not the greatest options, however my point still stands that a brutix or hype with another 12.5% to rep amount is not even going to come close to what shield tanks or asb tanks are capable. These shield tanks and asb tanks require fewer slots as well.

The specific suggestion towards increasing the rep bonus is to increase the niche advantage that ships with these bonuses have over resistance bonuses ships. Currently the difference is somewhere around 3%, resulting in "break even" times of 5+ minutes, which is more than you have cap boosters for anyway meaning that outside of the most eft inspired hypothetical situations, resistance is better for active tanking as well.

There is however another solution, which I've been a proponent for since it's suggestion. A reduction of the resistance bonus to 4% per level (bonus is op as **** anyway) while retaining the 7.5% rep bonus on active tanks. The follow on step would be to increase the effectiveness of the medium and large armor modules themselves. This would result in armor reppers being more viable on hulls w/o a rep bonus, while also increasing the relative niche effectiveness of ships with active bonus over those with resistance.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#164 - 2013-01-15 19:38:31 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
1) A lot of missions run longer than 6 minutes (using the prophecy/myr example. +/- for other contrasts)


Granted. For long PvE missions, Active tanking bonuses have a slignt (< 3 %) advantage. I never said the contrary.

Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
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


I don't even... seriously: what is your point here?

1. If you need to return to station during a mission, you are doing it wrong, because you are buffer tanked.
2. I don't see how tanking while nobody is shooting at you is relevant.

"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

Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#165 - 2013-01-15 19:42:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:
Veshta Yoshida wrote:
True, but what if/when MAR's and LAR's are brought up to par with SAR's and those 600dps tanked comes from one permanent + one intermittent cycled repper?

Until we have a better idea of what is planned for armour tanking, theorizing about and asking for larger bonuses is rather futile. Hell, for all we know the amount bonus could benefit from becoming a cap bonus when all is said and done Smile


Going to agree with you that buffing to 10% per level is not the greatest options, however my point still stands that a brutix or hype with another 12.5% to rep amount is not even going to come close to what shield tanks or asb tanks are capable. These shield tanks and asb tanks require fewer slots as well.

The specific suggestion towards increasing the rep bonus is to increase the niche advantage that ships with these bonuses have over resistance bonuses ships. Currently the difference is somewhere around 3%, resulting in "break even" times of 5+ minutes, which is more than you have cap boosters for anyway meaning that outside of the most eft inspired hypothetical situations, resistance is better for active tanking as well.

There is however another solution, which I've been a proponent for since it's suggestion. A reduction of the resistance bonus to 4% per level (bonus is op as **** anyway) while retaining the 7.5% rep bonus on active tanks. The follow on step would be to increase the effectiveness of the medium and large armor modules themselves. This would result in armor reppers being more viable on hulls w/o a rep bonus, while also increasing the relative niche effectiveness of ships with active bonus over those with resistance.


Gentlemen, please. This isn't about armor vs shield tanks.

Increasing the rep bonus would not help with buffer or RR, unlike the resist bonus.

Decreasing the resist bonus, still wouldn't do anything about the imbalance I am pointing out. A resist ship would still benefit much more from buffer mods and RR, while also benefiting from its bonus for active tanking.

The possible solutions are listed in the OP (tl;dr section).

"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

Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#166 - 2013-01-15 20:30:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Iris Bravemount wrote:

I don't even... seriously: what is your point here?

1. If you need to return to station during a mission, you are doing it wrong, because you are buffer tanked.
2. I don't see how tanking while nobody is shooting at you is relevant.


No... who said anything about buffer tanking?

An example of going to the station during the mission would be if you have an ACTIVE tank, but it is only capable of repping 500 dps, whereas the mission is dealing you 600 dps.

Slowly, the mission wears down your tank, (even though it is not a buffer tank!), until eventually, you are near hull, and so you go fly off to a station to recharge your shields and rep up your armor, then go back again.

This is pretty common amongst people who do solo missions, because you can often make a lot more money by taking on a mission that deals slightly too much damage for you to tank, if that allows you to go up to a higher level of agent. Even when you take into account time spent at the station.

In other words, you have a choice between either taking your 500 dps absorbing ship and doing a level 2 mission, and tanking it easily, or doing a level 3 mission, and having to visit the station once or twice. If you add up the total time both options take, including time at station, the level 3 will often end up paying out more isk/hour.




So, now that I've explained that... the reason why an armor tank bonus'ed ship would be better in this situation, is because while you are sitting outside the station repping back up to go in, your armor rep bonuses are working FULL STRENGTH. Every bonus you get to repping time or amount = less time before you are able to get back in the fight, and thus more isk/hour.

However, any resist bonuses you have are doing nothing for you while you sit outside the station and rep up. Nobody is shooting at you, therefore resist bonuses are not doing anything. You still have to rep up the same amount of armor though, and you can only do so slowly, since you dont have armor rep bonuses. Thus, you spend much longer at the station, and make less isk/hour.

If you do the math for a prophecy vs. myrmidion, the active armor tank bonuses will "break even" with the resist bonuses in terms of isk/hour after as little as 20 seconds of repping outside the station, if you ever do that.
Miguel Duran
Silver Lining Project
#167 - 2013-01-15 21:04:41 UTC
500 DPS tank has trouble tanking level 3s? Stop killing the trigger instantly.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2013-01-15 21:17:07 UTC
Miguel Duran wrote:
500 DPS tank has trouble tanking level 3s? Stop killing the trigger instantly.


I don't even know. I just arbitrarily made up numbers. Replace 500 with whatever other number makes sense as an awkward transition between agent levels.
Miguel Duran
Silver Lining Project
#169 - 2013-01-15 21:34:56 UTC
The thing is when you transition up an agent level you generally transition up a ship size and rep size along with it.

I wouldn't exactly call time repping outside of station when not getting shot huge advantage. About the same as the 3% increase in rep. Warping out and repping isn't exactly in any record-setting isk/hour mission strategies, its not a strategy to maximize isk/hour but to not die, such as when you are still learning the missions or the ship, or still skilling up. Once you really start caring about isk/hour, it will be a moot point.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#170 - 2013-01-15 21:37:37 UTC
Ok, the numbers were really off, so I doubt you know what you are doing. With a proper fit, you can tank most lvl 4 missions with any BC. Lvl 5 missions require either a RR gang or a (very) shiny fit.

Anyway, sitting in front of a station and repping yourself up is not something that really needs to be considered for ship balancing, IMHO, and I like to think that most people would agree.

I'm not saying it is something you shouldn't do: in fact, npc repping services are badly overpriced, but it just doesn't have meaningful impact on a ship's main purpose: combat.

"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

Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#171 - 2013-01-15 22:38:09 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Ok, the numbers were really off, so I doubt you know what you are doing. With a proper fit, you can tank most lvl 4 missions with any BC. Lvl 5 missions require either a RR gang or a (very) shiny fit.


Not true, my t2 fit ishtar does solo lv5s for Gallente quite happily .

And to repeat what those who have read the whole thread have said - this thread is about the resist bonuses being good for local repair, remote repair and being alpha'd versus an active repair bonus that is only good in the local repair situation. This is a massive imbalance currently and adversely affects ship balance in a significant portion of the the game.
Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#172 - 2013-01-15 23:06:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Ok, the numbers were really off, so I doubt you know what you are doing. With a proper fit, you can tank most lvl 4 missions with any BC. Lvl 5 missions require either a RR gang or a (very) shiny fit.

Anyway, sitting in front of a station and repping yourself up is not something that really needs to be considered for ship balancing, IMHO, and I like to think that most people would agree.

I'm not saying it is something you shouldn't do: in fact, npc repping services are badly overpriced, but it just doesn't have meaningful impact on a ship's main purpose: combat.


The numbers are off because I enjoy playing ***EVE Online*** not playing with calculators or fitting tools on third party websites. And although Eve itself does tell you dps dealt, and other things, it does not tell you active tanked dps absorbed as a numerical value. And I don't like spending my time solving equations to figure it out. I just figure out by trial and error whether it is enough, and when I have to write it down on a forum, I just am ballpark guessing. (I still understand the concepts of which tank is needed and which damage type diff. pirates do etc.). It's also been a long time since I ran level 2 missions, that the example is about, so the guess is probably further off.

Quote:
Anyway, sitting in front of a station and repping yourself up is not something that really needs to be considered for ship balancing, IMHO, and I like to think that most people would agree.

I'm not saying it is something you shouldn't do: in fact, npc repping services are badly overpriced, but it just doesn't have meaningful impact on a ship's main purpose: combat.


That's where you're mistaken. The main purpose of a ship from the perspective of many if not most mission runners is to make ISK. Unlike null PVP or whatever, winning in a mission doesn't gain you power or prestige or territory. The only thing you gain is isk. Thus, the goal is isk.

And repping at a station is very very relevant to the amount of isk you can make, in many situations. For example, for those select level 4 missions which you yourself admit are difficult to tank with anything. Repping can make a difference in isk, therefore it matters very much.

If we were talking about PVP where the goal is itself the combat, and combat efficiency (which then leads to territory and fame, etc.), then it would be an entirely different story. But we aren't talking about that.
Miguel Duran
Silver Lining Project
#173 - 2013-01-15 23:24:13 UTC
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:


That's where you're mistaken. The main purpose of a ship from the perspective of many if not most mission runners is to make ISK. Unlike null PVP or whatever, winning in a mission doesn't gain you power or prestige or territory. The only thing you gain is isk. Thus, the goal is isk.

And repping at a station is very very relevant to the amount of isk you can make, in many situations. For example, for those select level 4 missions which you yourself admit are difficult to tank with anything. Repping can make a difference in isk, therefore it matters very much.

If we were talking about PVP where the goal is itself the combat, and combat efficiency (which then leads to territory and fame, etc.), then it would be an entirely different story. But we aren't talking about that.

Sorry but if your goal is to maximize your isk/hour and warping out and repping is a big enough part of your strategy to warrant the repair bonus over the resist bonus, you are doing something terribly wrong.

If your ultimate goal for a toon is to complete level 4s as quickly as possible, later in your career you will end up in a Machariel or Nightmare and warping out to rep is NOT going to be in your mission running strategy at all. Ships should not be balanced or specifically tailored to warping out and repping. Warping out of missions and repping means theres something else wrong with what you are doing that should be fixed if you want to maximize your isk income. It is a last resort, should not be part of your plan.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#174 - 2013-01-16 09:43:40 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:

False.

1. Raw HP are irrelevant.
2. Myrmidon has a racial resist bonus against kinetic damage.
3. Speaking of timing, you forget to mention that the additional buffer granted by the resist bonus grants more time for the cycles to actually land before you die.
4. You completely ignore the major point of the post : active tanking bonuses only help with active tanking, while resist bonuses help also help with buffer and remote tanking.


4. No, I don't ignore or disagree with your point about the versatility difference between buffer and rep bonuses, it is a fact that rep bonus is useless without active tank. My post only tries to illustrate that a 5% resist bonus is not equal to 7.5% rep amount bonus when active tanking, even though they have similar numbers in EFT's averaged hp/s. And the reason is in the amount of raw HP repped per cycle, and in the way resist maths work.

1. Well no, they certainly aren't irrelevant, your shields, armor and hull are only raw HP. Reppers rep raw HP.
2. True, but that makes no difference, just badly chosen example.
3. Local reps on armor BCs are not like the massive saving-from-hull logi reps. Non-bonused medium repper only reps 320 HP/9s, regardless of the buffer.

So why I talk about the difference? Because changing the 7.5% rep amount to 5% resists would make the Myrm a worse active tanker than it currently is. And this would decrease variety in ships, which is terrible. Your other suggestions are better:

Quote:

- Replace all the resist bonuses with buffer bonuses
- Make active repair bonuses affect incoming remote repairs (would still not help the buffer issue)
- Increase the base HP of the active bonused ships


Buffer bonus sounds good, but how much? (This also tells a lot about the power of the current resist bonus)
Currently resist +5% means armor EHP 12.2K > 20.4K @ BC V
Armor hitpoints +10% means 12.2K > 18.3K @ BC V

Expanding it to incoming reps has been suggested before, and yes it's an interesting option.

Base HP buff, or sig radius decrease might work. Currently it looks like Fozzie wants to make them bigger, I don't understand why.

.

Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#175 - 2013-01-16 12:27:47 UTC
As said before, I would be happy with applying the active bonus to RR. It would still leavy active ships more vulnerable to alpha strikes, but I guess this could be balanced out with a better speed/sig ratio.

Making some BCs a bit bigger doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. There is a huge range in speed/sig ratios in BCs atm, so narrowing that range down a little would probalby help with variety. But that's a tad off-topic.

"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

Crimeo Khamsi
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2013-01-16 21:19:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimeo Khamsi
Miguel Duran wrote:

Sorry but if your goal is to maximize your isk/hour and warping out and repping is a big enough part of your strategy to warrant the repair bonus over the resist bonus, you are doing something terribly wrong.

If your ultimate goal for a toon is to complete level 4s as quickly as possible, later in your career you will end up in a Machariel or Nightmare and warping out to rep is NOT going to be in your mission running strategy at all. Ships should not be balanced or specifically tailored to warping out and repping. Warping out of missions and repping means theres something else wrong with what you are doing that should be fixed if you want to maximize your isk income. It is a last resort, should not be part of your plan.



Key phrase = "Later in your career."

I understand that it is possible to tank almost all level 4s solo without ever having to warp out. But I don't have the SP to fly those ships with those fittings yet. In the meantime, the only way I can possibly complete some types of level 4 missions is to warp out and rep and then come back. I have calculated the cost to isk/hour of doing this, and it still comes out to significantly more than just flying level 3 missions instead and never warping out.

So unless you have some better suggestion, AFAIK that's the best way to maximize my isk/hour FOR NOW. Don't blame me if you don't like the fact that that's bad game design. Blame the people who designed the missions and their payouts.

Yes, someday, I can do what you say. But only a fool would base their current strategies on what they WILL be able to do 3 months from now. By then I will be in a new ship and whatever bonuses (active armor tanking or otherwise) I have now will no longer matter.
Miguel Duran
Silver Lining Project
#177 - 2013-01-16 21:31:38 UTC
Roime wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:

False.

1. Raw HP are irrelevant.
2. Myrmidon has a racial resist bonus against kinetic damage.
3. Speaking of timing, you forget to mention that the additional buffer granted by the resist bonus grants more time for the cycles to actually land before you die.
4. You completely ignore the major point of the post : active tanking bonuses only help with active tanking, while resist bonuses help also help with buffer and remote tanking.


4. No, I don't ignore or disagree with your point about the versatility difference between buffer and rep bonuses, it is a fact that rep bonus is useless without active tank. My post only tries to illustrate that a 5% resist bonus is not equal to 7.5% rep amount bonus when active tanking, even though they have similar numbers in EFT's averaged hp/s. And the reason is in the amount of raw HP repped per cycle, and in the way resist maths work.

1. Well no, they certainly aren't irrelevant, your shields, armor and hull are only raw HP. Reppers rep raw HP.
2. True, but that makes no difference, just badly chosen example.
3. Local reps on armor BCs are not like the massive saving-from-hull logi reps. Non-bonused medium repper only reps 320 HP/9s, regardless of the buffer.

So why I talk about the difference? Because changing the 7.5% rep amount to 5% resists would make the Myrm a worse active tanker than it currently is. And this would decrease variety in ships, which is terrible. Your other suggestions are better:

Quote:

- Replace all the resist bonuses with buffer bonuses
- Make active repair bonuses affect incoming remote repairs (would still not help the buffer issue)
- Increase the base HP of the active bonused ships


Buffer bonus sounds good, but how much? (This also tells a lot about the power of the current resist bonus)
Currently resist +5% means armor EHP 12.2K > 20.4K @ BC V
Armor hitpoints +10% means 12.2K > 18.3K @ BC V

Expanding it to incoming reps has been suggested before, and yes it's an interesting option.

Base HP buff, or sig radius decrease might work. Currently it looks like Fozzie wants to make them bigger, I don't understand why.


+25% resist IS almost equal to +37.5% rep with everything else identical (3% difference). It doesn't matter that stacking more resists gives you seemingly less returns, +25% resists will always reduce incoming damage by the same % no matter how much resists you had already, so the ship bonus does not detract from the fit. The math has been done before multiple times. The resist bonus makes each point repped worth 1.33 times as much as without the resist, vs 1.375.

Adding +50% resist to a ship doubles its EHP no matter if it had 0% resist or 99% resist before. If you took a 1000 damage hit with 0% resist, you would take 500 damage with 50% resist, which is half the amount and you could take twice as much damage before dying. You would take 10 damage with 99% resist, and 5 damage with 99.5% resist, half as much damage taken and twice as long to live before dying.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2013-01-17 09:08:01 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.

As a mission runner myself, I have to say that taking less damage due to resist bonuses definitely makes my at-station repair time shorter than having to repair far more damage with a dinky barely-passable repair bonus. And that's not counting the hull damage I'm more likely to sustain with the repair bonus.

Iris Bravemount is correct here, why is this so hard for you guys to see? You can't argue with the simple math, and you can even verify this in-game pretty easily. You guys are arguing that in a case in which both ships repair damage at the same speed (relative to incoming damage) and one has less EHP, that the ship with less EHP somehow wins out over the other one ever.

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."

Roime
Shiva Furnace
#179 - 2013-01-17 10:55:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
You guys are arguing that in a case in which both ships repair damage at the same speed (relative to incoming damage) and one has less EHP, that the ship with less EHP somehow wins out over the other one ever.


Nope, we are arguing that in a case in which both ships repair damage at the same speed, but the other repairs much more than the other, the EHP difference doesn't matter, especially as it is only a 5% resist difference compared to 7.5% rep amount difference. It's simple really - rep bonused ship reps more than the received damage difference, and this advantage cumulates when you start piling on drugs and links.

And Iris Bravemount's point is not even which is better in active tanking, her post is about the fact that resist bonus is more universally viable, and rep bonus is only usable in active armor tanking- which again is only viable in solo and small gang context. This is true and imbalanced and nobody argues that.

My point is that any rebalancing aiming to fix this should not make the active armor tankers worse in their traditional niche, and changing rep bonus to resist bonus would indeed cause this. I'd even argue that in the current meta the repping capability of active armor tankers should be buffed, there is more dps on the field. A non-linked, drug-free BC IV pilot simply dies in flames in a dual rep Myrm.

.

Miguel Duran
Silver Lining Project
#180 - 2013-01-17 18:23:52 UTC
Roime wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
You guys are arguing that in a case in which both ships repair damage at the same speed (relative to incoming damage) and one has less EHP, that the ship with less EHP somehow wins out over the other one ever.


Nope, we are arguing that in a case in which both ships repair damage at the same speed, but the other repairs much more than the other, the EHP difference doesn't matter, especially as it is only a 5% resist difference compared to 7.5% rep amount difference. It's simple really - rep bonused ship reps more than the received damage difference, and this advantage cumulates when you start piling on drugs and links.

And Iris Bravemount's point is not even which is better in active tanking, her post is about the fact that resist bonus is more universally viable, and rep bonus is only usable in active armor tanking- which again is only viable in solo and small gang context. This is true and imbalanced and nobody argues that.

My point is that any rebalancing aiming to fix this should not make the active armor tankers worse in their traditional niche, and changing rep bonus to resist bonus would indeed cause this. I'd even argue that in the current meta the repping capability of active armor tankers should be buffed, there is more dps on the field. A non-linked, drug-free BC IV pilot simply dies in flames in a dual rep Myrm.

The resist bonus hardly makes active tanking much worse vs the repair bonus, theres a 3% difference, which actually needs about 7 minutes of constant repair to have any benefit because of the buffer that the resist bonus also provides. 3% is hardly tank-breaking.