These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why does CCP hate armor tanking?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lexmana
#21 - 2013-02-18 16:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lexmana
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:

Tip 1

Get your 3 slot toons able to PI

Tip2

Build your paste

Tip 3

Profit


Because the paste I make myself is for free ...
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#22 - 2013-02-18 16:09:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:

You are also confusing “fair” with “balanced”.

Those words mean exactly the same thing.
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#23 - 2013-02-18 16:09:57 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Tippia wrote:

You are also confusing “fair” with “balanced”.

Those words mean exactly the same thing.


Not in Eve.

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Derath Ellecon
ATRAX.
Shadow Cartel
#24 - 2013-02-18 16:13:01 UTC
The one thing I have found odd with the design of both Ancillary modules is the cap usage.

the ASB uses no cap. And is prevalent on shield tanked ships (obviously). The 2 races the do the best shield tanking by design, happen to have their primariy weapon systems also be capless (missiles and projectiles).

The traditionally armor tank heavy races get a module that still uses cap. and their primary weapon systems also require cap (lasers and hybrids).

Not sure if it means anything but I always found that somewhat interesting. Seems like it should have been reversed.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#25 - 2013-02-18 16:14:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Yes. How is it inferior?

Since you apparently don't speak English well enough to read the first post i'll explain it again. Shield gets cheaper charges, doesn't use cap, came out first, and if it follows the trend of normal boosters and repairers it probably heals for more too.

Tippia wrote:
Cost has nothing to do with balance, especially not in a game where those costs are determined by the players.

You're like the little engine that could, huh? Gotta admire your determination. You just keep repeating that and one day it'll become true.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#26 - 2013-02-18 16:17:34 UTC
Alice Saki wrote:
Not in Eve.

Eve is not a language, English is. And in English those are synonyms.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#27 - 2013-02-18 16:18:59 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
You don't have to ask, and we both know it.
So you don't know either, then? Then how can you make any kind of claim about “unfairness”, much less about balance?

Quote:
ASB ships retain 100% of their burst tank capabilities under heavy neuting. AAR users would fail there and then.
…apart from the fact the ASB ship loses, oh, 60% of his burst tanking capabilities since he has no hardeners.

Quote:
Cost IS a factor
No. Never. Largely because it can't be balanced to begin with, but also because it means that that kind of balancing requires costlier to be better, and that only ever causes imbalance. Cost was attempted as a balancing factor once in EVE. This left us with the never-ending headache that is supercaps.

Quote:
Still disagree on this.
If you want to disagree with reality, then that's your problem. Try fitting any kind of battleship-sized armour repper on a BC or cruiser and see what happens. It's just one more way in which armour and shields differ. AARs following the same pattern only makes sense.

Quote:
The fact is as follows: whether shield tanking and armor tanking are meant to be different or the same, ASBs are so much more useful IN ALL SHIPS compared to AARs that even active armor bonused ships will still be better off with ASB fits.
No, that's just a supposition. You have done very little to prove anything of the kind. You're harping on about cap and cost without showing what any of the modules translate into in terms of fits and cap usage and rep power and stamina and all the myriad of other things that will make any armour defence system differ from its shield counterpart.
Alice Saki
Nocturnal Romance
Cynosural Field Theory.
#28 - 2013-02-18 16:20:04 UTC
Tippia Will destroy you :D

FREEZE! Drop the LIKES AND WALK AWAY! - Currenly rebuilding gaming machine, I will Return.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#29 - 2013-02-18 16:21:11 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
The one thing I have found odd with the design of both Ancillary modules is the cap usage.

the ASB uses no cap. And is prevalent on shield tanked ships (obviously). The 2 races the do the best shield tanking by design, happen to have their primariy weapon systems also be capless (missiles and projectiles).

The traditionally armor tank heavy races get a module that still uses cap. and their primary weapon systems also require cap (lasers and hybrids).

Not sure if it means anything but I always found that somewhat interesting. Seems like it should have been reversed.


Shield and armor tank are different

It's not enough that they occupy different slots, shield tanking has to be cheaper, use less slots, be neut-immune, rep more, faster and at the beginning of cycle, otherwise they wouldn't be different.

.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2013-02-18 16:22:19 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Shield gets cheaper charges, doesn't use cap, came out first, and if it follows the trend of normal boosters and repairers it probably heals for more too.
…and how does that actually translate into it being inferior? I notice you only state things that don't mean anything (you don't even state stats, but just platitudes without any context) rather than any actual use case or numbers that show what the problem is.

Quote:
You just keep repeating that and one day it'll become true.
It's been true in EVE since, oh, 2005 or so.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#31 - 2013-02-18 16:26:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:


Quote:
Cost IS a factor
No. Never. Largely because it can't be balanced to begin with, but also because it means that that kind of balancing requires costlier to be better, and that only ever causes imbalance. Cost was attempted as a balancing factor once in EVE. This left us with the never-ending headache that is supercaps.


Cost is indeed a balancing factor, on Tranquility and according to CCP balancing team themselves.

.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#32 - 2013-02-18 16:26:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Tippia wrote:
apart from the fact the ASB ship loses, oh, 60% of his burst tanking capabilities since he has no hardeners.

A lot better than the 100% an armor ship loses.
Tialano Utrigas
Running with Dogs
Triumvirate.
#33 - 2013-02-18 16:26:52 UTC
Have you considered that Armour Tanking ships are generally harder to kill than Shield Tank ships (speed aside)?

Have you also noticed that the skills to T2 armour tank a ship are greater than those required to Shield Tank a ship? (Hull Upgrades V vs Shield Upgrades IV and Tactical Shield Manipulation IV?). Granted the time is similar for both but you get the idea.

Being balanced does not mean they have to be the same. That applies to skill, cost, fitting requirements and effectiveness.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2013-02-18 16:28:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Joran Dravius wrote:
A lot better than the 100% an armor ship loses.
…except that they don't, since they keep getting cap that they can use to actually claw big chunks back, and since they don't lose as much to begin with, since they have functioning hardeners.

Roime wrote:
Cost is indeed a balancing factor, on Tranquility and according to CCP balancing team themselves.
Source?
Oh, and if the ammo is really that problematic, I would agree that it's unfair that AACs can be kept supplied without having to rely on mining…
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#35 - 2013-02-18 16:29:03 UTC
Tialano Utrigas wrote:
Have you considered that Armour Tanking ships are generally harder to kill than Shield Tank ships (speed aside)?

Why would I consider something that isn't the case?
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#36 - 2013-02-18 16:30:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Source?

Go look at the market for 5 seconds.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2013-02-18 16:31:29 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Source?
Go look at the market for 5 seconds.
So, no source then.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#38 - 2013-02-18 16:33:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Source?
Go look at the market for 5 seconds.
So, no source then.

That's like asking for a source on the existence of gravity. Just go drop something and see if it floats FFS. The source is everywhere.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#39 - 2013-02-18 16:36:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Roime wrote:
Cost is indeed a balancing factor, on Tranquility and according to CCP balancing team themselves.
Source?
Oh, and if the ammo is really that problematic, I would agree that it's unfair that AACs can be kept supplied without having to rely on mining…


Latest CSM minutes and Tranquility. You will notice that a Thorax is cheaper than a Proteus. For example.

AARs use cap boosters and nanite paste, so you need both a complex PI setup and mining.



.
Mire Stoude
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-02-18 16:37:36 UTC
I can only see AARs being useful on frigates and ships with repping bonuses. I'm concerned about the price to effectiveness ratio on any other ship.

The cap usage is bad, but to be honest that is the issue with all active tanking (including active shield tanking) that should be looked at separately. IIRC the devs said the aren't happy with ASBs, so they may be further nerfed later. If that is the case, comparing them to anything is useless.