These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Shield tanking vs Armor tanking (fixs?)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#121 - 2012-12-18 13:26:12 UTC
Wasn't me who bought up over sized mods or said that they were OP. But if one is OP, they all are OP. There is no shield equivalent to the 1600mm plate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#122 - 2012-12-18 13:28:12 UTC
"if one is op they are all op" sounds like oversimplified bad logic to me
Mund Richard
#123 - 2012-12-18 13:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Well, yes.
1600 gives a lot more EHP, just like XLSB gives a lot more rep for one slot.

Deadspace modules make the shield part a bit further out of whack while plates only have navy versions.

Like I said, I want some rebalancing of the fitting and stats of the rest of the SB-s if the XL is taken out, not just simply saying "hurr-hurr OP, keeell eeet!"
1600 plates could be toned down somewhat as well.
800s by themselves lose to LSE-s though, so once again not just simple removal from game.
Though using this same logic as rebalancing shield boosters, the rest of the plates would need a look at their fitting, but then the shield extenders as well.
GAH, making a suggestion is annoying!
Prolly not needing a look at the buffers, as both can be oversized anyways.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Noisrevbus
#124 - 2012-12-18 13:35:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Mund Richard wrote:
But is he wrong doing so?

That depends... if this thread was about the fitting requirements of XL active tank modules, the decision to 5x the CPU on shield and 5x the PG on armor (relative the CPU-PG placement on most ships) and how that specificly relates to oversizing on Minmatar (with known fitting-advantages) command ships (that have many other "hidden" advantages over similar ships). Then yes, it's an eligable discussion at least - we can debate the various trade-offs and examine argument.

Is that what this thread is about?

Not really, as that would have little to do with the specific performance of the tanks overall.

No, this thread is rather about projection-buffer profileration favouring damage mods, buffers and LR weapons - so some people starts threads because they want every ship in the game to do just that Roll.

That, and that ASB were implemented pre-buffed into the game to make people active-shield tank again (which i doubt anyone would argue is balanced, and will be adjusted if it has not already been done with Retri).
Mund Richard
#125 - 2012-12-18 13:40:04 UTC
Noisrevbus wrote:
Mund Richard wrote:
But is he wrong doing so?

That depends... if this thread was about the fitting requirements of XL active tank modules, the decision to 5x the CPU on shield and 5x the PG on armor (relative the CPU-PG placement on most ships) and how that specificly relates to oversizing on Minmatar (with known fitting-advantages) command ships (that have many other "hidden" advantages over similar ships). Then yes, it's an eligable discussion at least - we can debate the various trade-offs and examine argument.

Is that what this thread is about?

No, this thread is rather about projection-buffer profileration favouring damage mods, buffers and LR weapons - so some people starts threads because they want every ship in the game to do just that Roll.

Hmmm...

What I see in the thread and what I see pressing quote are not quite the same o.O

What this thread was about at the start has been long forgotten, and folk bring in their issues with armor vs shield tanking.
Which this topic according to the title is about, so in a way, I guess yes, it is. Now it is!

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Perihelion Olenard
#126 - 2012-12-18 14:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
Paikis wrote:
Wasn't me who bought up over sized mods or said that they were OP. But if one is OP, they all are OP. There is no shield equivalent to the 1600mm plate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The massive 1600mm plates are balanced on smaller ships since the ship takes a massive loss of powergrid and agility. Then again on top of that the armor rigs reduce the maximum velocity. It's a double penalty for armor buffering. What penalty do shield rigs and extenders give? It becomes easier for larger classes of ships to hit that ship in some situations when not using the MWD. Not much of a penalty by comparison.

Also, armor cannot automatically regenerate like shields can.
Mund Richard
#127 - 2012-12-18 14:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
The massive 1600mm plates are balanced on smaller ships since the ship takes a massive loss of powergrid and agility. Then again on top of that the armor rigs reduce the maximum velocity. It's a double penalty for armor buffering. What penalty do shield rigs and extenders give? It becomes easier for larger classes of ships to hit that ship in some situations. Not much of a penalty by comparison.

And now we have come full circle, again the shield vs armor penalties. Roll

Though having 1600s on a cruiser is a bit over the top.
With this expansion, they even nerfed the Hurricane's (which is a BC) ability to have one, and a full rack of mediums in the highs while having a MWD.
So there was a step taken into that direction, in a somewhat roundabout way. Then again, with small neuts, it still fits.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Perihelion Olenard
#128 - 2012-12-18 14:58:24 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
The massive 1600mm plates are balanced on smaller ships since the ship takes a massive loss of powergrid and agility. Then again on top of that the armor rigs reduce the maximum velocity. It's a double penalty for armor buffering. What penalty do shield rigs and extenders give? It becomes easier for larger classes of ships to hit that ship in some situations. Not much of a penalty by comparison.

And now we have come full circle, again the shield vs armor penalties. Roll

Though having 1600s on a cruiser is a bit over the top.
With this expansion, they even nerfed the Hurricane's (which is a BC) ability to have one, and a full rack of mediums in the highs while having a MWD.

Oh no, you can't fit the largest guns, a MWD, two neuts, and all the tank you want anymore. It shouldn't have been able to do that in the first place.
Mund Richard
#129 - 2012-12-18 15:00:20 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Oh no, you can't fit the smallest medium guns, a MWD, two neuts, and all the tank you want anymore. It shouldn't have been able to do that in the first place.
Fixed

Not that I disagree with the message, mind you.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#130 - 2012-12-18 16:12:37 UTC
Paikis wrote:


You *are* comparing different sized modules. XLSB is an over sized module and does not compare with the LAR. You can call it BS all you like, but fortunately the truth does not require you to agree with it.

The rest of your post has been dealt with several times already, probably in this thread. heck, the whole post has been dealt with.

/sigh

Then the xlsb is overpowered based on its fitting requirements. It can be rather easily fit to ships 3 ship sizes down, whereas armour reps don't even come close. This isn't a problem with buffer tanks simply because armour trades damage and mobility for extra tank and ewar. This trade off doesn't exist with active tanks, because shields get damage, mobility AND tank, while armour only gets ewar. If xlsbs are meant to be oversized, then they need to have their pg fittings raised substantially, because CPU doesn't scale the same way pg does, so the term oversized means nothing.

I am curious though, what exactly do you use to qualify the xlsb as oversized. As far as I can tell, the only thing that lets it fit that category is the name; are you really going to argue that things should be balanced based on their names rather than what they do/the ways they're used?
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#131 - 2012-12-18 21:28:01 UTC
I swear it's like arguing with a recording set on loop. With that said, I'm bored, so here goes... again. >.<

Perihelion Olenard wrote:
The massive 1600mm plates are balanced on smaller ships since the ship takes a massive loss of powergrid and agility. Then again on top of that the armor rigs reduce the maximum velocity. It's a double penalty for armor buffering. What penalty do shield rigs and extenders give? It becomes easier for larger classes of ships to hit that ship in some situations when not using the MWD. Not much of a penalty by comparison.

Also, armor cannot automatically regenerate like shields can.


You'll notice that the XL-SB uses almost as much PG as the 1600mm plates (550 vs 575) while still requiring almost 7 times the CPU. You'll also notice that the 1600mm plate will work all by itself, where an XL-SB requires a cap booster to function for more than half a second.

Rigs is something I agree with, in fact if you check my post history, you will see that I support the reduction of penalties (all of them) for rigs. I have suggested in the past that the reduction in penalties associated with the particular skills be increased to 15% per level, taking the total reduction to 75% for a character with V in that skill.

There are other penalties for larger sig radius, I've listed them before, I'm not doing it again.

Cambarus wrote:
Then the xlsb is overpowered based on its fitting requirements. It can be rather easily fit to ships 3 ship sizes down, whereas armour reps don't even come close. This isn't a problem with buffer tanks simply because armour trades damage and mobility for extra tank and ewar. This trade off doesn't exist with active tanks, because shields get damage, mobility AND tank, while armour only gets ewar. If xlsbs are meant to be oversized, then they need to have their pg fittings raised substantially, because CPU doesn't scale the same way pg does, so the term oversized means nothing.

I am curious though, what exactly do you use to qualify the xlsb as oversized. As far as I can tell, the only thing that lets it fit that category is the name; are you really going to argue that things should be balanced based on their names rather than what they do/the ways they're used?


See above re: fitting requirements and penalties for tanking styles. Also please note that simply fitting one doesn't mean that you can do anything else with that ship, or that you can RUN that repper for more than a few cycles.

If the 1600mm plate isn't overpowered, then neither is the XL-SB. If one type of tanking can have its over sized tanking mod, then you have no ground to stand on when complaining about the other type having one.

I call them over sized because there are no comparable modules between shields and armor. Large shield extenders roughly compare with 800mm plates, but then you have the over sized 1600mm plates which have no shield counterpart. Same with large shield boosters roughly co-relating with large armour repairers. But then there's the XL-SB... no armour verions.

When I say it is over sized, I mean that it is one size larger than is available in other types. I consider Tachyon Beam Lasers to be over sized as well.
Perihelion Olenard
#132 - 2012-12-18 21:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Perihelion Olenard
You can fit oversized shield extenders on smaller ships as well as the plates. They have pretty good fitting requirements as well. Do you need a shield extender for battleships? Yes. It doesn't mean armor plates have to be nerfed because of it. Besides, armor has to be repaired. Shields just regenerate on their own no matter how much shield HP there is.

What saves active shield tanking is the fact you can use oversized ASBs. Armor is locked to small, medium, and large repairers on their respective ships. Do the mechanics have to change? No. Just give armor repairers the boost they need. A dual repairer cruiser active tanks for complete crap. A dual repairer BC is almost useless. ASBs were already nerfed and don't need to be nerfed again to make armor more viable.

People sometimes still would rather go with shield buffering or boosting instead of armor just because of the agility drawback of the plates and speed drawback of the rigs. This is in spite of the fact they could get more EHP on armor ships with the plate.
Mund Richard
#133 - 2012-12-18 22:29:36 UTC
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
You can fit oversized shield extenders on smaller ships as well as the plates. They have pretty good fitting requirements as well. Do you need a shield extender for battleships? Yes. It doesn't mean armor plates have to be nerfed because of it. Besides, armor has to be repaired. Shields just regenerate on their own no matter how much shield HP there is.

[...]

People sometimes still would rather go with shield buffering or boosting instead of armor just because of the agility drawback of the plates and speed drawback of the rigs. This is in spite of the fact they could get more EHP on armor ships with the plate
Somehow I'm not sure if you miss the guy's point, or argue against it.

He says there is no X-L Shield extender, while the 800 is as good (well, a bit worse) than a LSE, and the 1600 is twice as good, thus "oversized".
You know, just like how XLSB is twice as good and harder to fit than LSB.

Bringing up how shields regen is BS.
When under fire it hardly matters, else you can dock up and repair anyways.
Except when you cannot, but that's besides the point.

That anything having only one or two less mids than lows is viably flown with shield tank as long as two less is still 3-4, while the opposite rarely holds true for armor even with equal amounts of mid/lows, is something worth pondering on... Roll

But it has been said already, kinda in a loop, as someone already said that as well just a bit ago. Roll

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#134 - 2012-12-18 22:30:55 UTC
The more I'm reading this thread, the more I'm wondering why people insist on comparing apples to oranges. There's entire discussions based on random pieces of equipment, without anyone looking at the bigger picture. It's as if I'd take an Armor Hardener and a Shield Ward, compare cap use and conclude that armor tanking is superior, because it uses less cap per second. Yep, that makes total sense :p

Fact is, apart from some minor issues, both tanking styles are good and both have their uses in a number of situations. That doesn't mean they'll be equal in every situation - if that was the case, we might as well delete the other and leave just the one option anyway.
Mund Richard
#135 - 2012-12-18 22:40:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:
Fact is, apart from some minor issues, both tanking styles are good and both have their uses in a number of situations. That doesn't mean they'll be equal in every situation - if that was the case, we might as well delete the other and leave just the one option anyway.
Delete armor, I never liked how as a Gallente, I'm supposed to have my armor constantly blown to bits, while those corporate slave caldari never even have their paintjob scratched if they do it right. Roll

BTW, on 1600 not having a shield variation, just had a random BS thought, that will REALLY be comparing apples to oranges...
T2 1600: 33/575 to fit, 4800 raw health before implants/boost/Hull bonus (T2 amarr BC?)
XLASB: 200/500 to fit, 8820 raw health before using cap, or counting SBA/Hull bonus/implant/boost
Armor has passive amount implant set, shield has boost amount set. It now makes sense. Shocked
Well, not if you are being alphaed in a fleet situation ofc Roll

Ok, I think that was a silly enough thought, hopefully stopping now.

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
#136 - 2012-12-19 00:57:19 UTC
Paikis wrote:

If the 1600mm plate isn't overpowered, then neither is the XL-SB. If one type of tanking can have its over sized tanking mod, then you have no ground to stand on when complaining about the other type having one.

OK, I'm going to slowly lay out my point here, and I want you to tell me exactly where you think I'm mistaken:
Passive tanking:
Armor has the tank amount advantage and ewar advantage.
Shield has the speed advantage and the damage projection advantage.
The 2 are, more or less, balanced. We regularly see both used, despite their being different.

Active tanking:
Armor has the ewar advantage.
Shield has the damage projection, speed, AND tank amount advantage.
Because of this, nearly all active tanked ships use shields, whereas with buffers there is a fairly even mix between the 2.
See the problem?


You can't just label 2 completely different mods with completely different uses with the same name and insist that if one is overpowered then they must all be (or are you going to claim that tachyons must be overpowered if XLSBs are now too?) You have to look at how each mod affects the balance of the game. 1600mm plates are balanced because giving armor tanks more, well, tank allows them to stay competitive with shield tanks that get their own set of advantages. In active shield tanking, armor loses this advantage and gains nothing in return. I think it's fairly obvious that if you have 2 things that are balanced, then move an advantage over from one side to the other without compensating, the end result is not balanced, and this is what happened with active tanking.
PavlikX
Scan Stakan
HOLD MY PROBS
#137 - 2012-12-24 19:46:51 UTC  |  Edited by: PavlikX
Armor vs Shield tanking style.
I want to put my two cents.
I will not talk about PvP aspects, only about PvE.
So, if you want to fly PvE at serious note, you have no option - you will train shield tank. Reasons? Sure
- More low slots free to bring damage modifications
- More agility and speed
- Better multy damage low capasitor usage charges
- Passive regenaratable tank and so on. many aspects was said here allready. As result Drake, T2 fitted can deal with 5/10 Sansha ded complex. Name armor ships, capable do the same.
I don't like games, where only one real solution exists. I don't want fly Tengu, like numerous people around, because this is single one real cool ship for PvE. Probably it is my personal experience, but two men, who choose amarr from the start, leave the game, because they did not want to train Caldari list of skills. As i know, in PvP difference between Armor and Shield not so dramatic - many people debates about this. All of them have their own experience and knowledge. Armor must be buffed in PvE mainly. I put a lot of hope on the going rebalance and i want to bringt few solutions (if you think that it is stupid - go ahead :) ). Sorry if i repeate myself.

- Increase in 1.5 times effects of armor compensation skills
- decrease (slightly) penalty effects of armor rigs and plates
- bring mor emeta levels of armor plates, layering membranes and platings
- increase dronebays and bandwidth of all armor based ships? not only choosen ones
- bring more meta levels to the pure PvE module - reactive armor hardener (i heard that it is new type of module and so on, but i see no logic here). This will not ruin PvP in general
- cap bataries to be used with armor repairer modules. 800 and 400 in large, 200 in medium and smaller ones in small repairers. Let say this will speed up repairement process. Again, this will not bring disbalance to the PvP. Those battareis are too big. Probably sounds very strange, but i don't think so. We talking about game, power shields regenarates without using ship's power and remote armor repairement is possible from many kilometers.
- increase from 5 to 7,5 or even 10 % armor resist increasing of ships acording to the skill levels.
All of them will be too many. If CCP will make something to buf armor tank it would be great.
PS Sorry for my English
Spencer Owl
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2012-12-26 19:18:12 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Spencer Owl wrote:

- The Drake is the only BC that can tank a C3 anom. While it can't reach the level of any T3 in DPS it's still respectable. I've heard of considerations in removing the 5% resist bonus per lvl and I think that would level the playing field.


You can do it in the Ferox and Prophecy, as well as all the command ships.

Quote:

- The Scorpian can have the largest passive tank of any ship in EVE. Last I checked it ranged at about 1200 DPS tank. Granted that's with faction mods, fleet boosts, and all lvl 5 skills. 1200 DPS tank is INSANE!


Uhhhhhhh..... lol.

Quote:

- Guardians, in general, seem to be the superior logistic ship.


The Guardian is the only logistics ship that almost literally requires a buddy (or more). But yeah, I like it a lot when we actually roll armor fleet.

Quote:
Shield can kite but doesn't really have the ability to brawl like armor.


That's just wrong.

-Liang



When I said Scorpian I meant Rattlesnake. My bad. I would love to see the fit on a Prophecy that can active tank 400-500 dps and be cap stable. I remember attempting one but being unseccesful. To put it in perspective I have a hard enough time getting that out of a Saccralidge let alone a Prophecy. Perhaps I missed something? While I said BC which includes all T2 I meant to limit those to T1.

Armor tank usually means lots of nice mid slots = webs, painters, points, ecm, eccm. So when you get alfa, you'll most likely see all or most of it regardless your sig radius and velocity when up against a larger armor fleet.
Spencer Owl
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2012-12-26 19:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Spencer Owl
While on the 1600 plate conversation. Have any of you tried to warp in a T2 triple plated Armaggedon? I feel like I'm in my Orca when I do. The bonus might be large but don't forget the drawback and mass addition.

Lets not forget that shield extenders by default increase DPS tank. You up the Shield amount but the recharge time remains the same.

Who was talking about haveing your cake and eating it too?
Ivory Vintare Embermist
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2012-12-26 21:47:05 UTC
Altough I’m a really new player, there are few sugestions I’ll put here.

I’m NOT saying that all of them should be implemented.

1 – Active Armor Tanking in the moment takes more slots than Active Shield Tanking because larger shield boosters can be fitted on lower class ships. Armor Repair modules should use less capacitor, so they require less capacitor boosters, making the slot count a bit more fair as well as allowing more Armor Repair to be used if the player wish, or less if the player doesn’t want to use capacitor boosters at all.

2 – A reduction on Power Grid needs on Armor Plates or na implementation of 600mm and 1200mm Armor Plates. This will give more fitting options on smaller ships,

3 – Armor and Armor Plates have a double penalt, affecting max speed and agility. Armor Plates could have their weight decreased and armor rigs could penalise only Max speed or agility, not both, or have a reduction on the penalt from 10% to 7~5%.

4 – I never understood why Shield is fully repaired on docking but not armor, I can understand that structure wouldn’t get suck benefit as long as there isn’t any realiabre Hull Tanking mechanic. Armor should get fully repaired upon docking like shield is.