These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Active Tanking (CCP, please read)

First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#41 - 2011-11-10 19:07:15 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


In short, active tanking is as good or bad as it ever was, it's just that EVE needs more situations where active tanking is more useful than buffer-tanking.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Zions Child
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#42 - 2011-11-10 19:09:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Zions Child
CCP Greyscale wrote:
The way you'd probably want to deal with a charge-driven repairer is to give it a really long reload time.

Another option is to use the heat system, but it's not hugely user-friendly and ends up with your reps being burnt out which is less cool.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Another option is to use the heat system, but it's not hugely user-friendly and ends up with your reps being burnt out which is less cool.


CCP Greyscale wrote:
Another option is to use the heat system . . . burnt out which is less cool.



CCP Greyscale wrote:
heat system . . . less cool.



Just confirming, was pun intended?
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
SE7EN-SINS
#43 - 2011-11-10 19:10:51 UTC
Cap consumption on repair modules needs to be reduced significantly to make active tanking viable. Right now, it's hard enough to last a fight even if your enemy isn't performing cap-warfare and you've got a cap booster in your mids. With cap consumption as it is right now, you can kiss your active-tanked ship goodbye if the enemy has a Curse or two.

To make active-tanking viable without any sort of resistance tweaking or EHP tomfoolery, just make it possible to perma-run an active tank with no major difficulty assuming the enemy has no cap-warfare. Make cap boosters a tool to combat cap-warfare, not a neccessity to sustain your ship's capacitor.

Another possibility would be an Energy Grid rig, something like a "Capacitor Integrity Safeguard", that reduces the effectiveness of incoming neuts and vamps.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
Exxitium
#44 - 2011-11-10 19:11:49 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Cailais wrote:

A couple of options spring to mind. One is to add a form of ammo to armour reps - for an injection of HP. Another is to add scripts to armour reps. Such scripts would modify the repair rate/amount with some counter balance in terms of agiltity / speed or capacitor.

C.



I like this very much. Scripts.

Though all this looks very difficult to balance. I accepted as facts that active tanked ships are usefull in smallscale warfare and not in anything else, so I didn't bother finding a solution for scalability.

I would say, if you want to keep active tanking as it is, a small-scale warfare weapon, then apply the changes I posted. If you want to bring scalability, well then it needs some brainstorming.

The problem is, active tanking should be a valid option when in a bigger fleet. How to make it a valid option. How to absorb a huge amount of damage, while not being overpowered in small gang warfare.

Maybe some siege-like scripts for reppers ? Like, you get +100% HP repaired, -50% duration, -60% velocity for the duration of the cycle ? But then it rises more problems. Against a big fleet, your paperthin buffer (due to active setup) will melt, and you still won't have enough time to rep the incoming damage, despite having massively more effective reppers. The velocity malus would allow you to warp faster (like the web trick) and it might be a big balancing issue.

Or just like Cailais said, ammo for armor reps ? Just like capbooster charges. It would still be a pain to balance, but you can, for exemple, have 500HP/25m3, 1500HP/50m3, 3000HP/75m3, 5000HP/100m3, 8000HP/150m3 (The first value being the raw armor HP repaired, the second being the volume it would take in the armor repper). The armor reppers would have 50m3 and a 4s cycle for a small one, medium ones would have 100m3 and a 8s cycle, large ones would have 300m3 and a 10s cycle.

It would allow you to store 3x5000HP in a large repper, ready to unleash them when you're in low armor.

But then again it would be a huge pain in the butt to balance it and I'm not really in the mood of trying to balance all that :/


Small skirmish warfare tends to lean towards speed and agility - a script which increased these at the expense of hp regen? This might make sense if armour reps increased/decreased ship mass relative to their regen amount or rate. Conversly agility/speed are less relevant factors in larger scale fights where you are essentiallly be fired upon by everyone in range and cant hope to maintain traversal against every potential aggressor. Here you need raw HP in the hope that your adversaries are broken before your ship expires, or until someone can get a remote rep on you.

A combination of scripts and charges could be an option - meshing both with the player selecting scripts (weaker but with versatility) or 'ammo' charges for sudden hp boosts at the risk of exhausting them?

The reason i like the script idea is that gallente ships could script for speed (on the approach) and then script for tank once the enemy is under their guns. Minmatar ships would use the reverse approach, scripting for speed to maintain range swapping to tank if caught.

C.

MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2011-11-10 19:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: MotherMoon
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


it sounds to me like the issues with active tanking are also the issues with blob warfafe.

you need to find a reason for people to not target the same ship with over 50 ships and 10,000 dps

Then you'll make active tanking useful again.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg

pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2011-11-10 19:18:58 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


Very good post, largely true. Actual pvp 1v1 or 2v2 or other very small fights are increasingly rare as corps/alliances and bluelists keep growing in size, and ingame intel channels become more effective. So most combat happens beyond the range of DPS at which active tanking is viable, hence active tanking is generally a joke.

https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

M1AU
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2011-11-10 20:12:13 UTC  |  Edited by: M1AU
Sorry for being off-topic but:

Why can't we have this kind of conversation with CCP devs opinions in other treads such as the Hybrid weapon re-balancing with regards to how Blaster ships should work and the tier 3 BCs?

Both threads currently luck the views and directions CCP wants to go with them.

Please provide those with some more input so the conversation can go on.

Again, I'm really sorry for being off-topic, but this had to be said in a thread where CCP devs actually participate.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#48 - 2011-11-10 20:21:26 UTC
One of the things that would vastly improve active tank viability would be a stacking penalty on dps from numerous ships.

It would also help getting rid of this terrible 'ctrl+click broadcast window, hit F1' stupidity large scale pvp in eve currently is.

Also getting rid of rep cycles and changing them to a constant regeneration like passive shield tanks currently work would probably help rep mods usefullness - at least they'd benefit survival a wee bit instead of getting alpha'd before churning out a single rep cycle (although I like the dramaturgy in using oversized shield reps on e.g. a Sleipnir and start boosting up like mad shortly before the enemy thinks he's got you down).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
Exxitium
#49 - 2011-11-10 20:24:45 UTC
MotherMoon wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
I'm going to disagree and say that the real problem with active tanking is its lack of scalability.

With buffer tanking, your survivability against an arbitrary amount of DPS is always directly proportional to your EHP. No matter what situation you're in, adding 50% EHP keeps you alive 50% longer.

With active tanking, there's a range of DPS where you survive indefinitely (effective rep amount > incoming DPS), a fairly thin range DPS where it's "balanced" (effective rep amount ~= incoming DPS), and then a huge range of DPS above that where your tank is effectively pointless (effective rep amount << incoming DPS) and has no impact whatsoever on your survivability.

This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.

The tricky bit in resolving this is finding a way to let active tanking scale effectively at higher DPS ranges without making it totally overpowered for smaller engagements. The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels. Adding permanent resistance bonuses to reps makes the modules somewhat more useful but also serves to homogenize fittings towards primarily relying on EHP.


it sounds to me like the issues with active tanking are also the issues with blob warfafe.

you need to find a reason for people to not target the same ship with over 50 ships and 10,000 dps

Then you'll make active tanking useful again.


Well that's the arms race right there. AS HP totals have crept ever larger (capitals, supercapitals, POSes, SBUs, Titans etc) so has the need to bring more ships into a battle. Quite how thats overcome is an entirely different question and many will argue that co-operative play (with more players the better) is a definition of success: i.e blobs should win because their existence demonstrates superior powers of command and leadership.

C.

SilentSkills
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2011-11-10 20:26:37 UTC
Why not make the nanite repair paste (or a version of it) the "ammo" of active reppers, and then scale the amount used / min. accordingly.
I mean, the reppers use nanites to repair according to its description, so why not combine the twoand then tweak numbers
Cloora
APEX Unlimited
APEX Conglomerate
#51 - 2011-11-10 20:27:56 UTC
I proposed this idea on the old forums but my idea was to have active tanking modules add passive hp. Why shouldn't a LAR add as much hp as a 800mm plate? Why not have an XL booster add the same hp as a large extender and a large booster add 3/4 of that and a medium booster add as much hp as a medium extender. Considering the current fitting requirements it is not OP at all. Simpler change as well

http://www.altaholics.blogspot.com

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#52 - 2011-11-10 20:28:55 UTC
I'll just leave this here... (not a perfect solution mind, but it's better than most i've read so far)
From: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14433&find=unread
Quote:
Active Tanking MK II
Active tanking now evolves to keep pace with modern warfare. Active tanking performance vs resistance bonuses ship increases from 2% to about 14%.
In the largest change, the overloaded state of active tanking modules receive a significant boost, allowing active tanking ships to momentarily deal with bursts of high damage within small gang warfare much better than before. Finally, as top speed is vital to acceleration in Eve, armour rig penalties were modified.

- Racial (Gallente and Minmatar) Active tanking bonus changed from 7.5% per level to 10%.

- The overloaded bonus on both Shield Boosters and Armour Repairers changes to include a (stacking penalised with active tanking mods) 5%, 10% and 15% bonus to small, medium and large Shield or Armour resistances (respectively)

That, combined with some Neut hardeners could help even up the balance for active tanking ships....


Alternatively, you could just do-away with the bonus on Gallente hulls.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#53 - 2011-11-10 20:32:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Pattern Clarc
Also, everytime I think about active tanking, I remember this: link
I laugh for a moment, then weep inside before also remembering that shield passive tanking pirate implants are a go...

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#54 - 2011-11-10 20:40:19 UTC
Am I the only one here who feels like this is kind of a non-issue? Active tanking works perfectly fine on the ships that are bonused for it. It has its drawbacks - neuts destroy it, cap boosters must be managed, vulnerability to alpha, PG and CPU compromise DPS output, etc etc. But in the end, if you're tank exceeds incoming DPS, you're golden. There SHOULD be some drawbacks to what can be, potentially, god mode.

Anyone thinking active tanking is useless or broken should fly a triple-rep myrm. Or a XL-boosted Cyclone (with crystals and drugs). Or a Maelstrom. A maelstrom can tank an entire enemy gang, multiple BC's and BS's at a time. Dual rep fleet stabbers are boss too.

Active tanking is a challenge - it requires careful tweaking and even more careful piloting and cap management - but when done right, you are effectively invincible....for a period of time. I really think it should stay the way it is, giving arbirtrary 25% resistances and such would lead to some insane situations pretty quickly. Same with cap boosters - there's a very good reason they're so big. If you could run them forever, you'd be invincible forever.

Just my .02 isk.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Taedrin
Virtues Corporation
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#55 - 2011-11-10 20:42:25 UTC
A lot of good ideas in this thread, really - especially from Greyscale.

Giving reppers "charges" would be a good idea, IMO. EVEN IF you have a cloaky hauler following you around everywhere, this represents a large amount of risk - the hauler will be in danger of being popped when it drops a can and the can itself can be stolen from or popped.

But giving some sort of stacking penalty for focused fire on ships would also have the beneficial side effect of breaking up the blob, or at least giving a small blob vs. a big blob a fighting chance.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#56 - 2011-11-10 20:45:05 UTC
pmchem wrote:
Actual pvp 1v1 or 2v2 or other very small fights are increasingly rare as corps/alliances and bluelists keep growing in size, and ingame intel channels become more effective. So most combat happens beyond the range of DPS at which active tanking is viable, hence active tanking is generally a joke.


Come fight in the Faction Warfare zones. In the militias, you'll find that 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 action is still alive and well. Active tanking sees plenty of use around our PvP zone.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#57 - 2011-11-10 20:50:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Cloora wrote:
I proposed this idea on the old forums but my idea was to have active tanking modules add passive hp. Why shouldn't a LAR add as much hp as a 800mm plate? Why not have an XL booster add the same hp as a large extender and a large booster add 3/4 of that and a medium booster add as much hp as a medium extender. Considering the current fitting requirements it is not OP at all. Simpler change as well


No, its completely overpowered. Active tanking is NOT supposed to be equivalent to passive tanking. Repair units should not add raw hitpoints, and a plates should only increase EHP, not the DPS tank you can sustain indefinitely. The two are apples and oranges, not something that has to be equilized.

They are situational in use, and each has its drawbacks and advantages. Its rock-paper-scissors, just like the microwarp vs afterburner decision to make when fitting your ship. There isn't a single metric you can use to align the two, because your Sustained incoming DPS, and EHP, are two completely different stats that can't be compared directly.

Adding passive repair to plates or adding raw HP to repair units muddles the distinctly different purpose of the mods.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Jenshae Chiroptera
#58 - 2011-11-10 20:53:51 UTC
SMT008 wrote:
Active Tanking

Fitting recquirements :

This means, when you actually want to fit an active tanking ship (like the Cyclone or the Brutix), not only you'll have troubles with fitting all your guns/MWD but you'll also run into capacitor problems.[/b]


Cyclone is actually okay for CPU. It needs an extra mid or low slot for more tank or more damage to be in line with Tier 1 battle cruisers. Cap recharge rate could do with some love.

For the Large armour repair, definitely need a Large and X-Large. Having to sacrifice an extra slot for the same repair as the shield tankers isn't fair.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Nyssa Litari
Doomheim
#59 - 2011-11-10 20:59:09 UTC
Hmm... What about Burst DCUs that consume cap recharger modules? Need to make it to that gate? Get a temporary resistance boost of say 20 to 50% (shields and armor). Uses an additional slot (and moderate PG) so less valuable on small ships. Use of charges limits the time spent at higher resistances.
Autonomous Monster
Paradox Interstellar
#60 - 2011-11-10 21:05:13 UTC
If this forum doesn't stop eating my posts, I may have to murder someone. EvilCry

Turkatron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
... The most obvious fix I can see is some method of boosting active tanking's burst repair potential without making it sustainable at those levels.

This would only be a "fix" up to the amount of buffer the active tank has. With a burst tank who cares if you can tank 7000dps on paper, if you only have 1000ehp you will die. Burst tanks repair a very large percentage of hp with each cycle.
However, this an is interesting idea. Perhaps active tanks (or at least those meant for bursting) could have a repair half-life. Where the first cycle during activation repairs more hp than a sustained repair, then each cycle afterwords decreases repair amount till it hits a pre-defined floor for the module being used.


How about... rather than reps/boosters being active, they're... "reactive". So, when you switch them on, they don't immediately start restoring HP, but go into a "standby" state.

Waiting.

Watching.

Preparing to strike.

When the HP layer they work on is damaged they automatically go into action, sucking down a quart of cap (possibly a sound effect is in order, so you know when your cap has just disappeared) and restoring HPs. And- this is the trick- this happens before damage passes through to the next layer. So, the damage comes in, the layer is reduced, possibly to 0%. The layer being hurt triggers the rep, and it restores HP. Then the rest of the damage, if any, is applied. Special considerations may be needed for bleedthrough. Combine that with deteriorating performance over time, so you have passable resistance to initial spike damage, but avoid the "forever invincible" problem.

Or, going completely gonzo here for a second (Cool), what if, for ships with an actively running rep/booster, HP works a la Earthbound; when you take damage, rather than your HP disappearing immediately, your HP slowly (quickly?) runs down, giving you a little time to potentially rep it back up even if you've taken lethal damage.

...hmm, I'm not sure I like either of those overly. Both of them seem to render alpha meaningless, and the first might make active too much like buffer tanking.

This is tricky.

Anyway, can I take Greyscale's posts here as a sign that active tanking is something CCP are looking at? Blink

CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is I think also a major issue with "blasters" - a lot of the blaster platforms have to choose between fitting an active tank which isn't going to help at all half the time, and fitting a passive tank which discards one of their major hull bonuses and slows the ship down to boot.


Blasters- the weapon system where the problem is with everything except the weapons system (note: the problem is also with the weapons system).