These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#81 - 2013-02-18 19:29:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Darius Brinn wrote:
It IS meant to be fair.
No, it really isn't.
They're meant to be different, which means that fairness goes right out the window, especially once you start including things that have nothing to do with balance to begin with, such as cost.

You can use the new reppers when you run out of charges without killing your cap, and you can use all that cargo space on an actual cap booster to keep everything else running… how is that fair? Oh, wait, it's not in the exact same way as ASBs using cap charges is not fair.

Quote:
They don't speak English where you're from? Read the first post.
No they don't, just like pretty much everywhere else. Welcome to the rest of the world. It's a much larger place than you think.

Your first post just whinged about fairness and costs and made some very vague point about caps that wasn't really based on anything. The latter might be a balance problem, but you don't actually show that it is. Soooo… in what way is it imbalanced?

Quote:
ASBs use no cap when loaded, filling them with caps is cheap.
AARs will use cap, filling them with paste requires several times more ISK.
ASBs come in four sizes, are not limited to one per ship, and mid-size hulls (BCs) are able to fit one or two of the biggest ones.
Ok. So what's the actual effects of the cap usage? How does it translate into unfairness?
Cost is not a balancing factor, so that part is irrelevant.
Soft size restrictions are just of way in which armour and shield reps differ — it's not a balancing factor to begin with, even less so since, just as with the cap, you don't illustrate how it translates into any kind of unfairness.


Sorry Tip but your are just wrong, it is meant to have a sence of fairness. Doesnt have to be equal but should be fair or they wouldnt bother with ship balancing.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#82 - 2013-02-18 19:30:13 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
Tippia wrote:

I'll give you a simple one, since it's been so hard for you:
Provide two reasonable and comparable fittings, one AAR-based and one ASB-based, and show us what the problem is in terms of EHP, repping power, lasting power, and ability to maintain the overall functioning of the ship under different circumstances.


No. I'll make it easier for you. Take a Brutix, Myrmidon or Hyperion (ships with active bonus to armor tanking) and provide a fitting which will be more staying power than a similar ASB fit, for us to evaluate. We'll check cap life, GTFO capabilities, etc.

We saw ASBs in EVERYTHING, from Atrons to Myrmidons.

By the powers of your logic combined, we'll start seeing people fitting AARs to everything as well, even to ships not meant to be armor tanked, amirite?

After all, there is no lack of balance.


We saw ASBs fitted to everything. But we don't see ASBs fitted to everything anymore. Is your entire complaint that we aren't going to have a period of "AAR is so OP that you're a complete ******* ****** if you don't fit a LAAR to your sieged dread"?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#83 - 2013-02-18 19:31:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Whitehound wrote:
His problem, and that of many others, is that he sees some kind of competition going on between armor and shield tanker where there is none.

I was under the impression that shooting at each other is a competition, yes.

Liang Nuren wrote:
We saw ASBs fitted to everything. But we don't see ASBs fitted to everything anymore. Is your entire complaint that we aren't going to have a period of "AAR is so OP that you're a complete ******* ****** if you don't fit a LAAR to your sieged dread"?

-Liang

You seem to share Tippia's reading comprehension problem so I'll explain his post to you. What he asked you do to was provide a AAR fit for an armor rep bonused ship that's better than an ASB fit.

Altrue wrote:
Armor tanking is receiving a lot of buffs tomorrow, stop complaining and enjoy the game.

You sound like babies : Never happy, always you want more, more, more...


We'll be happy when we're not underpowered. I fly mainly gallente, the gimpest race in the game, and you're saying I always want more, more, more. Meanwhile the stats show winmatar and caldari are orders of magnitude more popular than amarr and gallente. Pilots of the other two races don't want more because they already have more.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#84 - 2013-02-18 19:41:59 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
I said you already knew. Which meant I didn't need to tell you, but nevertheless did.
No, you still haven't, and I still don't know. You said that we knew the same thing, which would mean that you had no idea.

Quote:
Oh, and saying that the Proteus has not completely substituted the Thorax because of "availiability" instead of COST is
…an accurate description of the situation. It's availability that has kept it from being ubiquitous. Again, the problem here is that you have it backwards. You are essentially saying that cost → balance (cost is a factor in balance). I'm saying that Balance → Availability → Cost (balance is a very indirect factor in cost). Had T3 material availability been higher, costs would have been lower, and the Thorax would be out of a job. Now, I'll grant you that there is the SP cost, which is a slightly different matter, and which usually does impact on balance in some way (even more with T3, since they can actually cost you SP).

Cost does not affect balance. It cannot, and it must not, because no amount of imbalance can be countered by cost — people will just get what's better because cost ridiculously easy to overcome (again, see supercaps). This is game design 101. Cost is not, and never has been, a balancing factor.

Quote:
Again, you fail. If the AAR can keep itself injected, SO CAN THE ASB,
No, it can't , because you posited that ASBs run without cap boosters (to highlight that it wasn't unfair that ASBs ate a whole lot more cargo space or that AARs could run without using cap charges).

Quote:
Also, armor tanking ships use active hardeners just as much as shield tanking ones.
Not really, no, since that would eat far too many slots. Instead, they rely on (passive) EANMs instead of (active) Invulns. The armour tankers avoid active hardeners for the same reason shield tankers avoid passive ones.

So yes, hardeners being turned off is a rather shield-specific problem.

Quote:
LOL. Is that what you have to say? Armor tankers cannot fit more than one of the module in question, the AAR. So their burst tank capabilities are not even remotely comparable to those of a ship equipped with multiple ASBs.
Your claim was that armour tankers don't fit multiple modules (without specifying what modules you were talking about), which you then disproved by the well-known tripple-repped Myrm. If you want to talk AAR vs. ASB, then we come back to the core question that you refuse to answer:

What's the imbalance? One uses two modules; the other uses one… so what? What does that translate into in terms of repping (and staying) power?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#85 - 2013-02-18 19:42:12 UTC
Darius Brinn wrote:
I am making claims based on actual EFT and combat stats
…and yet, you can't prove your point. It should be so easy for you, and yet you are struggling so hard. Why is that? Just provide the evidence you think you have! It really couldn't be any simpler than that. Prove that you're not just looking at it in a vacuum, like the OP suggests, and prove that there is an imbalance when applied to practical fits and situations.

Quote:
ASB is capless. Tippia's reply for armor tankers: go fit a cap booster.
Incorrect on both accounts. Let's try that one, but keeping it true instead:

Your claim: ASB is capless.
My reply: …until it runs out of cap charges, at which point it is screwed since its cap draw is huge and you've just used up all your cap charges and can't compensate with a a cap booster (and it competes for the charges with the booster, should you want to keep all your stuff running while under neuting). Meanwhile, the AAR has a constant draw that is easily included in the ship's cap economy, including being fed with a booster (which won't compete with anything to keep the ship afloat).

Quote:
We're just discussing CCP's admitted FACT that armor tanking needs balancing
No. We're discussing your unproven supposition that the AAR is performing too badly to not provide a counterbalance to the ASB.

Quote:
You are not asking for anything, as yelling "figures nao!" does not constitute a valid request. Want figures? Go fit a couple of Myrmidons as I suggested.
No. Onus probandi. You made the claim; you provide the evidence. If you refuse to, we can safely dismiss your claim as unsupported, unproven, and quite possibly (or even likely) uninformed.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#86 - 2013-02-18 19:47:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Darius Brinn wrote:
No. I'll make it easier for you. Take a Brutix, Myrmidon or Hyperion (ships with active bonus to armor tanking) and provide a fitting which will be more staying power than a similar ASB fit, for us to evaluate. We'll check cap life, GTFO capabilities, etc.

We saw ASBs in EVERYTHING, from Atrons to Myrmidons.

By the powers of your logic combined, we'll start seeing people fitting AARs to everything as well, even to ships not meant to be armor tanked, amirite?

After all, there is no lack of balance.
Ok, so you haven't actually understood what I'm asking you for since you have to drag this immense strawman out of the barn…

You think I'm saying that there is no imbalance between shield and armour tanking. This is incorrect. I'm saying that the OP's claim that AARs will not be “fair” compared to ASBs is unproven and that the supposed imbalance between these modules is equally unproven. I'm saying that even now, five pages in, no-one has offered anything to show that the problem that is the topic of this thread — AARs vs. ASB — is actually a problem at all in practical terms.

I make absolutely no predictions about AARs or ASBs or their usage after the patch, and your (yes, your — I certainly haven't made it) suggestion that one imbalance will be replaced by another is just as unsupported and unreasoned as every other claim made in this thread.
Toku Jiang
Jiang Laboratories and Discovery
#87 - 2013-02-18 19:50:59 UTC
So from what I got out of this thread ASBs are better than AAR's. I'm just glad they aren't messing with my LAC's or MRG's, cause then I'd be like all mad and sh**.
Ditra Vorthran
Caldari Imports and Exports
#88 - 2013-02-18 19:53:24 UTC
CCP makes the game mechanics, players set the prices.

If you don't like the game mechanics, blame CCP. If you don't like the prices, blame the players.

Which is it?

"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#89 - 2013-02-18 20:07:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Gotta admit, these repers look very expensive to run and on paper not a good as active sheild fits.


This thread seems to be full of people who insist on filling their ASBs with normal T1 cap boosters. Refresh my memory - how much does it cost to fill an XL ASB? IIRC it was 13 cap boosters * 175k ea, not including the cost of hauling them down in bulk separately from the ship you needed to put them in?

IMO the improved fittings and improved mobility more than make up for any lacking in the AAR.

-Liang

Ed: This thread also seems to be full of people who believe that Eve PVP is accurately represented by fleets of sieged dreads shooting each other.


Im still working out if its going to be usefull on the megathron.


It feels awkward to start talking about active tanking being useful on the Megathron. If that's the bar you're setting.... well, let's just say there's much better ones.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#90 - 2013-02-18 20:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Joran Dravius wrote:

Liang Nuren wrote:
We saw ASBs fitted to everything. But we don't see ASBs fitted to everything anymore. Is your entire complaint that we aren't going to have a period of "AAR is so OP that you're a complete ******* ****** if you don't fit a LAAR to your sieged dread"?

-Liang

You seem to share Tippia's reading comprehension problem so I'll explain his post to you. What he asked you do to was provide a AAR fit for an armor rep bonused ship that's better than an ASB fit.


Again, there's more to Eve PVP than modeling all tanking as sieged dreads shooting at each other. I'm pretty sure that the AAR is at worst in need of a minor tuning. It's roughly in the correct place, IMO. Perhaps a bit too powerful - but I won't complain about it for a few weeks.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#91 - 2013-02-18 20:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
The only change I would like to see, is the module fitting restriction either lifted off the AAR or applied to the ASB.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#92 - 2013-02-18 20:31:04 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
His problem, and that of many others, is that he sees some kind of competition going on between armor and shield tanker where there is none.

I was under the impression that shooting at each other is a competition, yes.

That is idiotic. Technologies are not at war here. The players are.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Pinaculus
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2013-02-18 20:54:48 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
It's not meant to be fair.

Of course it is!

His problem, and that of many others, is that he sees some kind of competition going on between armor and shield tanker where there is none. These are two different technologies for different slots and anyone can use either of them or even both at the same time.

Shield tankers have the higher boost rate and they have the DPS modules working on their side. Armor tankers have e-war and propulsion mods working for them.

But many players have this misconception that tank'n'gank should be a tactic available to both types of tanks, not only to shield tanking, and to allow them to reduce their fitting choices down to a choice of colours - like girls in a dress shop deciding over which colour makes them look more sexy; is it the red dress or the black dress?! Roll

It is a childish. They either need to grow up or get out.

What they ignore is that there is more than tank'n'gank and that it has e-war. For example... projectile weapons consist mostly of a long fall-off and posses little optimal range. A single tracking disruptor will reduce the fall-off by 50% and thereby reduces the effective DPS by just as much. What takes an armor tanker here a single mid-slot in order to do requires two low-slots on the shield tanker to counter for it.

Minmatar shield tankers have figured this out a long time ago and so they always fit TEs next to gyros.

If everyone knew how to fit their ships right and how to fly them then we had no explosions in EVE.

It is fair. HTFU.


I agree with you up to a point. Certainly the biggest difference between Shield and Armor tanking is the availability of mid-slots for propulsion, cap boosting, and E-War....until you look at most Amarr ships and how many mid slots they have. That said, your general point still stands. And seeing as this isn't a ship-balance thread I'll just leave you with a +1.

I know sometimes it's difficult to realize just how much you spend on incidental things each month or year, but seriously, EVE is very cheap entertainment compared to most things... If you are a smoker, smoke one less pack a week and pay for EVE, with money left over to pick up a cheap bundle of flowers for the EVE widow upstairs.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#94 - 2013-02-18 21:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelique Duchemin
Won't a shield take nearly three times as much damage from EM ammo when compared to equal armor with resistance mods?

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#95 - 2013-02-18 21:17:41 UTC
OP is grossly misinformed. Nanite repair paste used to average around 17-19k, it will rebalance out around 22-24k each, once enough people in PI shift over to it. Which won't be many after the initial demand slouches. At this point, it is mostly speculative investors, and people who are all excited for a new module, but haven't bothered to check the stats on the AAR. (Is bad.)

Going with 24k p/u on nanite repair paste, that is 96k per boost, and 768k per full reload. A very large disparity between that, and OP's claims of 2.4mil to reload a med. Not to mention it's only 1.5mil to reload a large, even. Sure, it's a little bit more expensive than using an ASB, but hardly by any significant figure.
Whitehound
#96 - 2013-02-18 21:30:30 UTC
Pinaculus wrote:
I agree with you up to a point. Certainly the biggest difference between Shield and Armor tanking is the availability of mid-slots for propulsion, cap boosting, and E-War....until you look at most Amarr ships and how many mid slots they have. That said, your general point still stands. And seeing as this isn't a ship-balance thread I'll just leave you with a +1.

Take a Scorpion, fit its 4 low-slots with a DCU+LAAR+Resists and fill the 8 mid-slots with e-war. The one, brief moment you get lucky and get through all its jamming will the LAAR keep it alive more than ever. How will you fight this?!

To demand for the AAR to be as strong as the ASB makes e-war completely over-powered again.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#97 - 2013-02-18 21:37:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


It feels awkward to start talking about active tanking being useful on the Megathron. If that's the bar you're setting.... well, let's just say there's much better ones.

-Liang


I get megathrons to do stranger things than this.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#98 - 2013-02-18 21:39:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:


It feels awkward to start talking about active tanking being useful on the Megathron. If that's the bar you're setting.... well, let's just say there's much better ones.

-Liang


I get megathrons to do stranger things than this.


You know what works surprisingly well is a nano Mega...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#99 - 2013-02-18 21:43:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I get megathrons to do stranger things than this.
That's because you have an obsession, and it's probably not healthy… Blink
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#100 - 2013-02-18 21:43:34 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


You know what works surprisingly well is a nano Mega...



2 years ahead of you on that one.