These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sanguine Belroth
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2011-11-15 05:29:14 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Greyscale, once again you're talking about something you weren't asked at all in the first place.

As already pointed out, no one was complaining about how active tanks scales to blob-warfare. We could care less about this crap.

What is really an issue is the fact that it's often better to use buffer tank than active one in small-scale PvP, too! Can you imagine how stupid current game must be if it makes this possible? That's just like meeting an active-tanked ship in blob-warfare occasionally. Does it ever happen (outside capitals) ? No. Everyone will agree an active-tanked ship stands no chance whatsoever in large-scale combat. While at the same time it's perfectly fine to slam in several fugly shield extenders (or plates) and go rocking in small-scale PvP. WTF?

There's a crapload of issues with active vs passive tanks in general - and they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the scalability you mentioned.

As stated:
- plates use too few MWs. 1600mm plate for mere 500 MWs? Really?
- so are shield extenders which - on top of prodiving huge EHP boost - don't even slow you down.

Make overtanked ships slower - add velocity penalty for shield extenders!

On top of that:

- tanking rigs use only 50 calibration points and aren't stacking penalized. WTF?
- passive tanking mods like plates and shield extenders cost NO ISK - they're basically FREE

Instead you must create such a system, where only certain amount of invested isk may get you proper level of EHP - just like it is with active tanking. Tech2 active tank is a joke.

So cut current EHP bonuses of plates and extenders by, say, 1/3 and introduce deadspace plates/extenders which will actually COST SOME ISK and provide the same bonuses as current tech2.

Make it fair.

It's high time you've utilized JUSTICE.


You sir are unhinged. This reads "I MY SHIP TO BE BETTER" so break everything else, so that I now feel superior.
It is the raving of a mad-man. Do you honestly feel that the majority of ship fittings should no longer be possible - just so your cyclone looks better in comparison?
If you have an idea for a buff to Active tanking, by all means go ahead. I think that Shield boosters should take less CPU, that would be nice.
Otherwise, I postulate you are perhaps trolling?


Haulin Aussie
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2011-11-15 05:39:40 UTC
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.




Speaking over heat, any chance you can hit someone up about fixing the green Overload part of the module? it's annoyingly small and fiddly, and would be a welcomed change by all I believe

(inb4shortcutderpers)
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#143 - 2011-11-15 17:53:25 UTC
Sanguine Belroth wrote:
Fon Revedhort wrote:
CCP Greyscale, once again you're talking about something you weren't asked at all in the first place.

As already pointed out, no one was complaining about how active tanks scales to blob-warfare. We could care less about this crap.

What is really an issue is the fact that it's often better to use buffer tank than active one in small-scale PvP, too! Can you imagine how stupid current game must be if it makes this possible? That's just like meeting an active-tanked ship in blob-warfare occasionally. Does it ever happen (outside capitals) ? No. Everyone will agree an active-tanked ship stands no chance whatsoever in large-scale combat. While at the same time it's perfectly fine to slam in several fugly shield extenders (or plates) and go rocking in small-scale PvP. WTF?

There's a crapload of issues with active vs passive tanks in general - and they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the scalability you mentioned.

As stated:
- plates use too few MWs. 1600mm plate for mere 500 MWs? Really?
- so are shield extenders which - on top of prodiving huge EHP boost - don't even slow you down.

Make overtanked ships slower - add velocity penalty for shield extenders!

On top of that:

- tanking rigs use only 50 calibration points and aren't stacking penalized. WTF?
- passive tanking mods like plates and shield extenders cost NO ISK - they're basically FREE

Instead you must create such a system, where only certain amount of invested isk may get you proper level of EHP - just like it is with active tanking. Tech2 active tank is a joke.

So cut current EHP bonuses of plates and extenders by, say, 1/3 and introduce deadspace plates/extenders which will actually COST SOME ISK and provide the same bonuses as current tech2.

Make it fair.

It's high time you've utilized JUSTICE.


You sir are unhinged. This reads "I MY SHIP TO BE BETTER" so break everything else, so that I now feel superior.
It is the raving of a mad-man. Do you honestly feel that the majority of ship fittings should no longer be possible - just so your cyclone looks better in comparison?
If you have an idea for a buff to Active tanking, by all means go ahead. I think that Shield boosters should take less CPU, that would be nice.
Otherwise, I postulate you are perhaps trolling?



Everything will remain absolutely possible.

DON'T PANIC!

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.

Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2011-11-15 21:48:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
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.



I'm sorry it just makes no sense to me to have active tanking bonuses on ships that have them. This is not a scaling problem or a problem with active tanking. Its a problem when you give them to ships that must fight in close:
1) Have to fight in close= blaster boats= in neut range.
2) because they are in close range, they will take entire enemy gang's max DPS and will need all the buffer it can get to give any remote rep/internal rep time to cycle (because that mechanic sucks on armor repping too), if your lucky enough to have it.
3) Most have too few mid slots to dedicate to cap booster to fix problem 1, except the mrym, which isn't even a blaster boat.
4) All the other primary systems on the ship eat cap (ie the Blasters.)

It would have made more sense to make amarr the active tankers and Gallente the passive tankers with high resists. Or actually, even better- shield tanked. But what ever. I'm so tired of how broken this mechanic is I give up.

Bottom line, scaling is not the issue. Active tanking in a close in fight is just pointless. Neuts will kill you too quick.
Denidil
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#145 - 2011-11-15 21:52:32 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:
Neuts will kill you too quick.


there is a potential solution to that - if you have a charge based active tanking module it can grant neut-immunity while active.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Mariner6
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2011-11-15 21:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Mariner6
Denidil wrote:
Mariner6 wrote:
Neuts will kill you too quick.


there is a potential solution to that - if you have a charge based active tanking module it can grant neut-immunity while active.


Well, that would be cool, but probably over powered. Then neuts loose all purpose. As much as I would enjoy that, it would be too over the top. I'm not asking for Gallente to pawn everything else. I just want to have a fighting chance.

I mean it would probably make more sense for all blaster boats to get a utility high slot and be able to fit a vamp in there, and then sufficiently increase the vamp's performance to make it very difficult to neut you out, but not impossible. But frankly, why have to tweak all that stuff. Just passive tank it and be done with it. Its more flexible and can survive in a wide range of situations from small gang to larger fleet issues. I think armor repping in general should be changed to give the repair upon activation vice at the end, like shields but hey. Can't do that now can we.

Just give me a second bonus to scram range on Gallente ships and I'd be happy. Maybe another mid slot on some of the ships for some cap boosters.
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#147 - 2011-11-16 10:56:09 UTC
Mariner6 wrote:

I'm sorry it just makes no sense to me to have active tanking bonuses on ships that have them. This is not a scaling problem or a problem with active tanking. Its a problem when you give them to ships that must fight in close:
1) Have to fight in close= blaster boats= in neut range.
2) because they are in close range, they will take entire enemy gang's max DPS and will need all the buffer it can get to give any remote rep/internal rep time to cycle (because that mechanic sucks on armor repping too), if your lucky enough to have it.
3) Most have too few mid slots to dedicate to cap booster to fix problem 1, except the mrym, which isn't even a blaster boat.
4) All the other primary systems on the ship eat cap (ie the Blasters.)

It would have made more sense to make amarr the active tankers and Gallente the passive tankers with high resists. Or actually, even better- shield tanked. But what ever. I'm so tired of how broken this mechanic is I give up.

Bottom line, scaling is not the issue. Active tanking in a close in fight is just pointless. Neuts will kill you too quick.


There is something wrong with your vision of the problem.

You're not ALWAYS fighting vs ships with neutralizers.

On battleships (Especially those with dual Heavy capboosters setups), the medium neutras from hurricanes will have troubles emptying the Hyperion's capacitor (I mean, you can hold your ground vs 2 Hurricanes and a Drake without much troubles).

It will be much harder with a shield tanked ship (Who can only fit one capbooster).

I don't see many active tanked ships who can avoid fighting in close range (Except shield Machariels maybe).

You are a flying brick, you can take a serious punishment before dieing (usually, in a "fair" fight). You can't run your MWD for ever because it cost too much capacitor (Which is already low because of active tanking). You're usually not in a ship who can outrun opponents (I mean, you're not active tanking a shield Vagabond, a shield hurricane, a shield cynabal. You're not active tanking a nanodrake either. The ships with active tanking bonuses aren't fast AT ALL. The Brutix/Myrmidon/Hyperion, those ships are armor tanked and slow. The Cyclone isn't really fast either, especially since you can't fit any nanos in low because you have 4 lowslots).

That means, you'll fit a warp scrambler, maybe you won't fit an MWD (On a Maelstrom for exemple) because you won't be able to do crap. Do you plan on catching a target with a MWD Maelstrom ? Except if it's a freighter, you won't catch it. So, might want to switch to a warp scrambler, get rid of the MWD, let the target take out your shield, when you're close to mid armor, the target should be within scramble range thinking "Ahah I'm so pro I just ownd a Maelstrom", then pulse your Xlarge shield booster like mad, tackle it, take it down in 20s and collect tears.

That's how it works, and it works actually (When the gang you want to engage don't have a flying piece of faggotry, that thing called the Falcon, or the Kitsune). I'm just trying to change it so it's not a complete pain in the butt to fit an active tanked ship (Sub-battleships mainly, even though the Maelstrom could use some CPU, the Hyperion could use Ions or Neutrons). Because currently, fitting an active tanked ship completly cripple your damage/tracking (Armor ships) or your ability to tackle, have a MWD, fit an ECCM so you don't get ownd by ECM drones every now and then...
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#148 - 2011-11-16 10:58:23 UTC
Btw, if you can't fit a capbooster on a Brutix, let me show you :

Quote:
[Brutix, PVP DualRep]
Damage Control II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Medium Armor Repairer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 x1
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M

Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I


Hammerhead II x5


See ?

It can tank another battlecruiser 1vs1, it can tank a few cruisers (like 2/3 without much troubles), it can deal 560 DPS, it can hold tight any ship it catches (Like stupid cynabals/Vagabonds, they'll melt against a decent brutix).

But again, what's the problem with this ship ? Look at the lowslots, they are all dedicated to tanking. You have literally no damage mod. You're superior (But not by a good margin) to a buffer tanked ship in a 1vs2/3 cruisers situation because the buffer tanked Brutix will die in a fire before killing the 2 cruiser. But you have worse tracking, worse damage, you're not even capable of running your MWD because of the active tank who literally obliterate your capacitor.

If you apply the changes I've put in the OP, well, here is how it could look like :

Quote:
[Brutix, PVP DualRep]
Damage Control II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 x2
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II

Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Void M

Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Medium Anti-Explosive Pump I


Hammerhead II x5


So what changed ? Here is what changed :

You get 800 per 22 second cycles (12 second for one cycle, 10 second for the module to reload) before the changes.

You get 1600 per 34 second cycles (24 second for two cycles, 10 second for the module to reload) after the changes.

What do you get ? 36.4GJ/s before the changes, 47GJ/s after the changes.

Your capacitor is now a bit more stable.

Each Medium Armor Repairer needed 173 PWG before the changes. It needs 103,8 after the changes, successfully freeing up 138,4 PWG.

Your medium capacitor booster needed 150 PWG before the changes. It needs 90 PWG after the changes, successfully freeing up 60 PWG.

With the changes, you now have 198,4 additionnal PWG to play with, for bigger guns.

1312/1437 PWG before the changes, with Electron blasters II

1113,6/1437 PWG after the changes, with the same guns.

Still not enough to fit a full rack of neutrons, but hey, you can fit Ions, get more DPS, and more range (maybe you can fit meta 4 neutrons with an implant, I did enough maths already :( )

You free up some CPU on the capbooster, even though it's not really needed on this ship.

So what ? More damage (560 DPS vs 689 DPS), more range (Not enough to be noticable on medium blasters, I agree), more tank (A little bit, because 2x15% is better than 1x20%), easier to maintain a decent amount of capacitor, Isn't that a gallente buff ?

Those stats were calculated by hand, I can't really modify EFT, and I didn't add the incoming hybrid changes.

Let me talk about the Cyclone for a moment.

Quote:
[Cyclone, PVP Active]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
F85 Peripheral Damage System I
Tracking Enhancer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Dread Guristas Warp Scrambler
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800
Invulnerability Field II
Dread Guristas Large Shield Booster

425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Core Defence Capacitor Safeguard I


Let's give some stats :

532/531 CPU (With faction stuff. The DG LSB is 35M or something, don't remember about the warp scrambler)
1489/1512 PWG


With a meta-X damage control, and with faction stuff, it barely fit. Really ?

The DG Large Shield booster 85 CPU. The T2 version uses 115 CPU. What ? +30 CPU ?

With 5 slots, tell me what you're supposed to fit on an active PVP ship. A Capbooster. A tackle module (Warp scrambler, you won't chase around vagabonds with that fat cyclone). A MWD (It's ok not to have one in a Maelstrom because it's a ship that actually WORKS decently) because you're still a battlecruiser, you can't accept to be as slow as battleships, and a shield booster.

Where's the room for hardeners, shield boost amplifiers and such ?

There is this one medslot. Fill it with an invulnerability field and here you go.

Resistances ? Here they are : 53/62/62/68.

I'm sorry, but with a ship THAT vulnerable to neutralizers (Medium neuts will hurt it quite a bit, Heavy neutralizers will WRECK IT), slow, low DPS (538, despite the two gyros), the shield amount doesn't exceed 4400 (literally 1k less than the Brutix's armor, but it's fine because it has always been like that, I'm not complaining on that), you have kinda low resistances...
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#149 - 2011-11-16 10:59:57 UTC
It's just too much disavantages for one ship.

The only time I saw a Cyclone killing a Hurricane was in one of Garmon's video (Or Will Adama, I don't remember). Is this normal for a dedicated active shield tanker to loose vs a ship from the same ship class who don't have any shield bonus ?


With the changes, that's how you could fit a Cyclone :

Quote:

[Cyclone, PVP Active]
Gyrostabilizer II
Gyrostabilizer II
Damage Control II
Tracking Enhancer II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Cap Booster 800 x2
Invulnerability Field II
Large Shield Booster II

425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet EMP M
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Rage Assault Missile
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Rage Assault Missile

Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I


Previous : 532/531 CPU

The DG LSB needed 85 CPU, it now needs 59,5 CPU freeing up 25,5 CPU (The T2 went from 115 to 80,5 CPU, and that makes it usable on a Cyclone)
The capbooster needed 25 CPU, it now needs 18,75, freeing up 6,25 CPU


You can then get a T2 warp scrambler, a T2 Large shield booster (So you don't have to pay an additional 35M to have a working ship), you can get a T2 Damage control, you get 20% omniresistances from the large shield booster (Which helps with your overall low resistances), your capbooster will yield a bit more cap (Less vulnerable to neutralizers), so you can replace the safeguard rig to a resistance rig to fill that EM hole.

Here you go, a working-as-intended ship (And you can now think about Xlarge shieldboosters without completely crippled setup, yay).

I'm really sorry for those wall of texts btw, thanks for reading them though Smile
Kil2
Club Bear
#150 - 2011-11-16 11:34:36 UTC
I like greyscale and fon.

I generally disagree with OP
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#151 - 2011-11-17 09:48:48 UTC
Bump, I did not write walls of texts all over the topic for nothing :(

The more feedback, the better :)
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#152 - 2011-11-18 15:06:39 UTC
Any more feedback about how to fix active tanking ?
Tornado Bait
2 Canadians 1 Jar
#153 - 2011-11-18 15:15:39 UTC
Why not just increase the bonus reps get from overheating.

20%-50/100

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
#154 - 2011-11-18 15:34:21 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.



At the risk of being trolled here ...

can we divert power to the shields?

I am serious, a sort of super overload on armor rep and shield boost, something that makes their cycle time VERY short, which will make them drain your cap faster and hence not be sustainable. Hell you could drop cap recharge during this mode and say 3 minutes afterwards that might be enough.

Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.   Peace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#155 - 2011-11-18 15:37:40 UTC
Active setups already have capacitor problems and they can't keep their Xlarge SB or Dual LARs for more than a minute and a half. While having very short cycletime is not a bad idea, you would empty your capacitor in less than 20s.

Vyl Vit
#156 - 2011-11-18 15:43:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
It would be nice to put all the potential into doing damage with scant resources used for defense (which includes tanks and support). I prefer the idea that a certain amount of resource must be spent in defense, or real vulnerability appears. This should hold true for fleet action vessels especially. Fleets should have to be balanced. The issue should be forced. There should be no all DPS fleet.

Shield boosters/armor reppers are very good ideas, but their cap and power useage aren't realistic. PVE vs. PVP fits make this two separate issues, though. An ideal solution for one would seem to throw the other out of whack. Simplifying resistances through ship attributes alone, with no mods augmenting them would certainly determine ship choices. However, using a uniform standard, as if the tech-standard is universal, isn't all that unrealistic.

What I find objectionable are calibration inequities or insufficiencies that allow for a distorted/imbalanced preferred method barring all other possibilities. At present cap draining seems to be the method of choice. Regardless of your tank, and weapons, having one mod that can make a ship useless despite all its other attributes may make life simple for some, but is indicative of poor calibration. One mod defeating the entire inventory of mods - even cap boosters, just doesn't make sense.

But yeah. All things being as they are, it CAN be truthfully said active tanking has been calibrated into relative uselessness. And for us Minmatar...the duct tape solution for every ill seems to be getting out of reach, too (but, that's another story.) Blink

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Vincent Gaines
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#157 - 2011-11-18 15:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Gaines
Tornado Bait wrote:
Why not just increase the bonus reps get from overheating.

20%-50/100




tbh overheating should give you an edge over an otherwise even match. It should not be a method to bring tanking (or any other aspect) up to par.


active tanking should be de facto for small engagements with little or no logistical support. It should have a significant edge over passive tanking, rewarding skill at managing cap use (by selectively using modules during an engagement).

Passive tanking is for fleet engagements with logistical support, where a ship's EHP is secondary to the DPS it puts out, as the ship is part of a collective unit in itself. When primary it doesn't matter what you have as a tank, it's up to the logi to help you and for you to stay alive long enough for them to get reps on you.

Has anyone considered active tanking ships to have more of a resistance to neuts?

Not a diplo. 

The above post was edited for spelling.

Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#158 - 2011-11-18 15:50:15 UTC
My biggest qualm with active tanking is the huge difference in capability between armor and shield.

Numbers from T1 versions

Shield has: S (12 hp/s), M (22 hp/s), L (45 hp/s), and XL (90 hp/s). (easily amplified by boost amps and rigs)

Armor has: S (10 hp/s), M (20 hp/s), L (40 hp/s). (only amplified by rigs)

Given that armor reps (after smalls) take around 10x the PG to fit, and the only way to match the tank a shield can do is to double up on reps, it makes it near pointless b/c you generally have to take off guns to make reps fit.

Where is the balance here? The only 'trade off' i see to the fact armor uses 10x more PG is that shields use more CPU (average of 2x more), but unless i'm trying to T2 mine w/ my battleship, i rarely ever have to make concessions from running out of CPU.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

SMT008
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#159 - 2011-11-18 15:56:02 UTC  |  Edited by: SMT008
Panhead :

Don't forget that shield boosters take ludicrous amounts of capacitor because of the shorter cycle time.
They also take bazillion times more CPU than LAR.
Fyi, a Xlarge shield booster takes 230 CPU. Yes, 230. A LAR takes 55.
Your EANMs takes 36 CPU, our invulnerability fields takes 44.
Our shield boost amplifier takes 55 CPU.

But I don't think it's THAT imbalanced. Armor ships use more PWG, shield ships use more CPU, I'm fine with that.

I'm not trying to find a solution so active tanking is scalable and usable in big fleet fits. I'm fine with the fact that in fleet fights, you need logistics, you can't do everything alone.

However, I'm trying to fix active tanking so it doesn't completely wreck your fit (Read OP for more informations).

EDIT : Didn't see the part where you talk about how ARs takes x10 PWG and SBs takes x2 CPU (if you compare it to it's counterpart). It's true, but don't forget that PWG is way more volatile than CPU. I don't know if I'm using the right word here, but on a battleship, you can reach 25k PWG without much troubles. CPU is really limited (A frigate have 250TF, a battleship have 800TF. If you compare it to PWG, a frigate have 45 or something. A battleship have more than 12k in most cases)
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#160 - 2011-11-18 16:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Panhead4411
SMT008 wrote:
Panhead :

Don't forget that shield boosters take ludicrous amounts of capacitor because of the shorter cycle time.



Actually, compare the cap per second used between shield/armor for each counterpart, It's not even double. its only 167% or something (on average) example being large reps, armor uses 26.6 cap/s, shield uses 40.

And your argument doesn't hold much water about the CPU when comparing Teir 3 BS's...(not using cap boosters b/c i'm counting FULL self stable cap, not retreating every 3 mins to get more charges)

i can fit a full rack of 800's on a Mael, plus full T2 (1 XL T2 booster) tank, and if i want to remain stable i can fill the low's w/ cap mods as needed (fill in extra w/ dmg mods)

Look at Hyper, in order to match the hp/s, you need to put 2x large reps. But to fit them, you can only have 6 rails. And still to remain stable, all the mids must be cap mods.

And yet, they tank about the same (Mael still wins though), but one is way less effective than the other.

Am i wrong?

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...