These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Armor / shield rig concept discussion for Inferno

First post
Author
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#281 - 2012-04-24 23:23:40 UTC  |  Edited by: MeBiatch
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.


honestly i what i think a big problem is is that gal/min repper bonus is good ONLY for internal reps... it does not A. increase EHP B. Increase effectiveness of incoming Remote Repair..

what i would do is A: increase skill bonus to 10% per level and make it so external (not from your ship) Remote Repair gets your ship bonus so now you get a large increase in the effectiveness of remote repair

what this would do is make non caldari/ammar ships be able to competitive..

plus i would decrease the falloff bonus on TE because they make minnie op..

i dont think its as much a problem with rigs as its a problem with skill bonus and pg/ fitting slots on ships that use them...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#282 - 2012-04-25 00:26:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ganthrithor
There's a whole host of issues you need to look at if you want to make active tanking viable on cruiser / frigate hulls

- Active tanking takes up too many slots
- Active tanking devours way too much cap
- Reps / boosters take up too much CPU/PG
- Because you have to trade resist mods and HP mods in order to fit the reps, you end up with zero buffer, which means that an active tank needs to rep an absurd amount of HP/s to be effectively better than a buffer tank.

Just because I was curious, I did a quick mathematical comparison of a very tanky (shield rigs, damage controllled) dual-LSE Vaga vs a "very tanky" (shield repping rigs, damage controlled) MSB Vaga, and here's how it works out:

(DISCLAIMER: The boosting Vaga reps 104 dps, the LSE Vaga regens 72 DPS. In EVE, however, the LSE Vaga will only regen ~72 DPS while its shields are at peak regen-- above and below peak it will rep less. I don't know how to model this, so I've just assumed a constant 72 DPS rep effect. This will make the LSE Vaga look a little better than it should towards the right of the graph and a LOT better on the left, but you get the idea. The main point is how awful the active tank setup is. The left-most data point for the active tanked setup is technically infinite (since the fit tanks more than 100 DPS), but I set it at 2000 seconds so as to render the rest of the graph readable.

http://i.imgur.com/f7kbV.jpg

Notice that the boosting setup's buffer lasts ~15 seconds when subjected to 500 DPS. This isn't totally accurate (since damage and rep aren't averages in a real fight-- they both come in bursts), but it gets the general idea across. As soon as incoming DPS exceeds your (awfully low) ability to rep, your ship quickly falls apart, whereas a buffer fit at least gives you some time to react.

e: for some reason, the "insert draft" thing (when I used it after the forum ate my post) removed the last character from each line of this post. Go figure. I've restored them.
Proud Blackman
Doomheim
#283 - 2012-04-25 01:22:11 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.

You're going to bias Minmatar ships (the ships with the LEAST amount of capacitor/cap regen in the game) towards active shield tanking (the most cap-hungry tanking method in the game)?

I just can't believe you're actually considering any of this. You're aware that the only times active tanking works are PvE scenarios where the incoming DPS is predictable and limited, and ridiculous PvP scenarios involving deadspace / officer fit ships, legions of boosting alts, billions in implants and designer drugs, right?

Just in case you missed the best post in the thread, here it is on page whatever.
Rn Bonnet
Perkone
Caldari State
#284 - 2012-04-25 04:01:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Rn Bonnet
You can not balance the prevalence of active vs passive tanking. Many have stated that active tanking "has its place in small gang and pve." What they have not explained is why.

The problem fundamentally lies in the nature of active tanking. On an active tank the more DPS is applied (aka the more ships involved) the less net damage is required. On a passive tank the same net damage is required no matter how many ships are involved. A simple mathematical model of how long it takes an eve ship to die might look like this:

timeToDie = EHP / (NumberShips * DPSPerShip - TankedDPS)

If we take to ships, one with 100k EHP, and no active tank and one with 50k EHP and 1200 dps tanked against ships averaging 600dps we obtain the following equations:

timeToDie = 70,000 / (NumberShips * 600)
timeToDie = 50,000 / (NumberShips * 600 - 1200)

This means after six ships, the _beastly_ 1200DPS active tank is less effective than the somewhat mediocre 70k EHP passive tank. If you happen to like Big O notation (asymptotic arguments), assuming that we fix average DPS:

O( E / N ) > O ( 1 / (N - T)) for E > T


The problem is if you boost active tanking so that the crossover point becomes high, it now becomes impossible for ships to kill each other 1 on 1. Active tanking is more or less unfixable, beyond perhaps taking some time to insure that "active tankers" are more effective against 1 ship than an EHP buffer.
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#285 - 2012-04-25 04:40:09 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno.

It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking.



This makes me wonder if you have ever actually played this game. Buffer/passive tanking is for PvP and active tanking is for PvE. If you make a race favor one or the other you are limiting that race to one type of combat.

I feel stupid having to spell something so basic out to you but since you posted something so clearly ignorant of game mechanics let me spell it out for you. In PvP once you are primaried you typically die before your repper can get a second cycle off and often before it can complete one cycle. Any mod to provide local repairs or boost local repair ability is useless. also in fleet ops where you often have remote reps ships with resistance bonuses clearly have an advantage over ships with active bonuses like repair amount as the resist bonus makes the RR far more effective while also boosting EHP which is the most important tank stat in PvP.

This should be made painfully obvious by the number of people that choose shield extenders over shield boosters for interceptors where signature radius is hugely important but even then the extra sig radius seems to be worth the gained EHP as most of the PvP experts will tell you that is the way to fit a Sitletto at least and I'm assuming it's similar for the other races.

This is not to say that active tanking is never used in PvP . There are special situations where active tanking are preferred but those are the exception and not the rule.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli

Rn Bonnet
Perkone
Caldari State
#286 - 2012-04-25 04:50:56 UTC
Quote:
Buffer/passive tanking is for PvP and active tanking is for PvP


Active tanking is used quite often in PvP, it is simply not used in large scale engagements. The reasons for which I explained above. Also remote repping is used in PvP and arguably is active tanking.
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#287 - 2012-04-25 06:53:38 UTC
Rn Bonnet wrote:
Quote:
Buffer/passive tanking is for PvP and active tanking is for PvP


Active tanking is used quite often in PvP, it is simply not used in large scale engagements. The reasons for which I explained above. Also remote repping is used in PvP and arguably is active tanking.


Remote repping is both: buffer tank with remote reps applied. The "active" aspect in this case works because the ship providing the reps is specialized to do so and the ship that's tanking the damage has buffer to absorb damage while the reps cycle. Most single-ships in EVE have neither when configured for solo active-tanking.
Conventia Underking
Underking Family
#288 - 2012-04-25 07:14:20 UTC
The issue I have with tanking isn't passive vs active tanking, but the fact that increasing shield size results in an increase in effective regen.

For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity!

The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking

Sigras
Conglomo
#289 - 2012-04-25 08:19:16 UTC
ergherhdfgh wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We would like to discuss possible changes to Armor / Shield rigs for Inferno.

It would be the first of many steps to rebalance active versus passive tanking, and promote usefulness of active tanking in small, mobile combat while making associated rigs more compatible with Gallente armor repairing bonuses. In general, we want races that need to use speed in combat (Gallente and Minmatar) to favor active tanking, while races that have more a static philosophy (Amarr and Caldari) prefer passive tanking.



This makes me wonder if you have ever actually played this game. Buffer/passive tanking is for PvP and active tanking is for PvE. If you make a race favor one or the other you are limiting that race to one type of combat.

I feel stupid having to spell something so basic out to you but since you posted something so clearly ignorant of game mechanics let me spell it out for you. In PvP once you are primaried you typically die before your repper can get a second cycle off and often before it can complete one cycle. Any mod to provide local repairs or boost local repair ability is useless. also in fleet ops where you often have remote reps ships with resistance bonuses clearly have an advantage over ships with active bonuses like repair amount as the resist bonus makes the RR far more effective while also boosting EHP which is the most important tank stat in PvP.

This should be made painfully obvious by the number of people that choose shield extenders over shield boosters for interceptors where signature radius is hugely important but even then the extra sig radius seems to be worth the gained EHP as most of the PvP experts will tell you that is the way to fit a Sitletto at least and I'm assuming it's similar for the other races.

This is not to say that active tanking is never used in PvP . There are special situations where active tanking are preferred but those are the exception and not the rule.

This post really makes me wonder how long you've played this game . . . when I joined in 2006/2007 active tanking was the standard for PvP and it was strange to us when we ran upon a buffer megathron. It wasnt until rigs became more and more affordable and people began to figure out just how overpowered trimarks/field extenders are that passive tanking became the norm.

Believe it or not there are still fights with < 300 people on each side, and yes, while active tanking will never be viable in those situations, right now it isnt viable in ANY situation in PvP and that is wrong. Saying that active tanking should stay a PvE only thing is not only narrow minded and short sighted, but doesnt help balance the game.
Sigras
Conglomo
#290 - 2012-04-25 08:26:38 UTC
Honestly, I think the first step is to put a stacking penalty on everything that increases the base amount of HP, that includes:

Trimark Armor Pumps
Core Defense Field Extenders

The way it stands, if you have 10,000 armor HP and you put one trimark on you get 11,500 which is fine, 15% more, but if you put two of them on you end up with 13,225 or 32.25% more than you started with, and a third one pushes you to 15,208.75 or 52% more armor than you began with. This is like getting compound interest at the bank, it gets crazy fast because the later ones add a percentage to the already increased percentage of armor by the previous one.

At the very least they should stack nerf against eachother so each subsequent trimark has less effect, also IMHO they should combine their effect so if you have one fitted it gives you a 15% increase, two fitted give you a 28.05% increase (because of the stacking penalty) and three fitted give you a 36.6% increase.

Also, why are they 50 calibration? they are, by an order of magnitude, the most effective and desirable rigs, why is their calibration cost super low? shouldnt the better rigs cost more calibration?
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
#291 - 2012-04-25 09:10:26 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Honestly, I think the first step is to put a stacking penalty on everything that increases the base amount of HP, that includes:

Trimark Armor Pumps
Core Defense Field Extenders

The way it stands, if you have 10,000 armor HP and you put one trimark on you get 11,500 which is fine, 15% more, but if you put two of them on you end up with 13,225 or 32.25% more than you started with, and a third one pushes you to 15,208.75 or 52% more armor than you began with. This is like getting compound interest at the bank, it gets crazy fast because the later ones add a percentage to the already increased percentage of armor by the previous one.

At the very least they should stack nerf against eachother so each subsequent trimark has less effect, also IMHO they should combine their effect so if you have one fitted it gives you a 15% increase, two fitted give you a 28.05% increase (because of the stacking penalty) and three fitted give you a 36.6% increase.

Also, why are they 50 calibration? they are, by an order of magnitude, the most effective and desirable rigs, why is their calibration cost super low? shouldnt the better rigs cost more calibration?


So now, not only have Gallente ships the slowest speed, they also have way less hp buffer to spend on the hour and a half it takes to catch up with anything with shields.

while (CurrentSelectedTarget.Status == ShipStatus.Alive) {

     _myShip.FireAllGuns(CurrentSelectedTarget);

}

Kobea Thris
Inquisition FiS Division
#292 - 2012-04-25 09:48:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Kobea Thris
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Thanks for the wake-up call people Oops


Among the reasons you listed on why this is a bad move: it is trending to make shield and armor tanking the same, penalize ships with little capacitor than can't afford active tanking, doesn't prove to be consistent in general, would affect active tanking as well due to the signature increase / affect to resistance rigs, doesn't scale well at all and does little to fix the issue itself in any shape or form.

In conclusion, this is just too much controversial / poorly thought to be a first step to anything, we need to take a step back, breathe, and have a look at the whole passive versus active tanking situation through modules and ships as well as changing rigs before committing to more changes


Obviously, this concept will be scrapped (meaning not going in for Inferno), we will however keep looking at this thread as they are good ideas coming up here.



Currently shield extenders give both buffer and regen, which is one of the things that makes passive shield tanking powerful. Armor tanks obviously don't have anything similar. What if Plates and Extenders both gave a bonus to Armor Repair/Shield boost amount (local only not remote)? I don't know exactly what the percentages would need to be, but my basic goal would be that active tanks would use a plate or extender in place of one (or more) of the resistance modules they currently use.

.

Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#293 - 2012-04-25 09:48:16 UTC
Proud Blackman wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
This is quite possibly the worst idea I've seen out of CCP in years, and that includes Monoclegate.

Shield rigs penalizing speed is beyond ******** (guess why shield ships are more popular than armor tankers for PvP, especially small-gang PvP? Hint: it's because unlike their armor counterparts (which must fully commit to a fight due to being slow pieces of ****), shield-tanked ships can actually skirmish.

You're going to bias Minmatar ships (the ships with the LEAST amount of capacitor/cap regen in the game) towards active shield tanking (the most cap-hungry tanking method in the game)?

I just can't believe you're actually considering any of this. You're aware that the only times active tanking works are PvE scenarios where the incoming DPS is predictable and limited, and ridiculous PvP scenarios involving deadspace / officer fit ships, legions of boosting alts, billions in implants and designer drugs, right?

Just in case you missed the best post in the thread, here it is on page whatever.


Actually I don't really like that post at all.

Ganth notes that shield is far superior to armour in skirmish, but then objects to a measure designed to reduce the effectiveness of the ubiquitous shield-extended skirmish fits.

Biasing Minmatar towards active tanks is not the same as forcing them to it. And since Minmatar has abundant fittings for cap boosters and capless weapons, I think he overstates the cap problems. When a shield Cane has the cap to run dual med neuts and a MWD for long enough, it kinda supports this.

He then goes down the old nullsec blobmonkey route of hurrr, active is PVE only. Sure, active is niche in PVP and deserves to be made more viable (active is too hard to fit, too slot-intensive and not rally good enough, but not only does it exist, it deserves to exist too).
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
Siberian Squads
#294 - 2012-04-25 09:55:34 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Honestly, I think the first step is to put a stacking penalty on everything that increases the base amount of HP, that includes:

Trimark Armor Pumps
Core Defense Field Extenders

The way it stands, if you have 10,000 armor HP and you put one trimark on you get 11,500 which is fine, 15% more, but if you put two of them on you end up with 13,225 or 32.25% more than you started with, and a third one pushes you to 15,208.75 or 52% more armor than you began with. This is like getting compound interest at the bank, it gets crazy fast because the later ones add a percentage to the already increased percentage of armor by the previous one.

At the very least they should stack nerf against eachother so each subsequent trimark has less effect, also IMHO they should combine their effect so if you have one fitted it gives you a 15% increase, two fitted give you a 28.05% increase (because of the stacking penalty) and three fitted give you a 36.6% increase.

Also, why are they 50 calibration? they are, by an order of magnitude, the most effective and desirable rigs, why is their calibration cost super low? shouldnt the better rigs cost more calibration?

Good points.

I'm fine with leaving sig radius penalty for CDFEs as it is, but increasing calibration cost to 200 for a tech1 rigs and 300 for tech2.

And stacking penalty should be there anyway.

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

Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#295 - 2012-04-25 10:20:49 UTC
Rn Bonnet wrote:
You can not balance the prevalence of active vs passive tanking. Many have stated that active tanking "has its place in small gang and pve." What they have not explained is why.

The problem fundamentally lies in the nature of active tanking. On an active tank the more DPS is applied (aka the more ships involved) the less net damage is required. On a passive tank the same net damage is required no matter how many ships are involved. A simple mathematical model of how long it takes an eve ship to die might look like this:

timeToDie = EHP / (NumberShips * DPSPerShip - TankedDPS)

If we take to ships, one with 100k EHP, and no active tank and one with 50k EHP and 1200 dps tanked against ships averaging 600dps we obtain the following equations:

timeToDie = 70,000 / (NumberShips * 600)
timeToDie = 50,000 / (NumberShips * 600 - 1200)

This means after six ships, the _beastly_ 1200DPS active tank is less effective than the somewhat mediocre 70k EHP passive tank. If you happen to like Big O notation (asymptotic arguments), assuming that we fix average DPS:

O( E / N ) > O ( 1 / (N - T)) for E > T


The problem is if you boost active tanking so that the crossover point becomes high, it now becomes impossible for ships to kill each other 1 on 1. Active tanking is more or less unfixable, beyond perhaps taking some time to insure that "active tankers" are more effective against 1 ship than an EHP buffer.


Great talk, but you don't go far enough : as you explain, you cannot buff active tanking efficacity without making it overpowered, so the problem is the buffer tank. Buffer tank need more drawbacks compared to active tank. As I explained, shield rigs have *no* drawback, because sig is unsignificant. This, combined to the absence of difference between active tank and passive tank rigs make shield better than armor for skirmish, and buffer better than active tank in most situations.

Hence, we need to remove a drawback from active armor tank, and to add one for shield buffer. Job done ; minmatar/caldari pilots cry because they have to wait for someone to make a decent fit and learn to manage their cap, and then everyone is happy in a balanced world !
Spugg Galdon
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#296 - 2012-04-25 10:32:31 UTC
Active Tanking vs Buffer Tanking and Ship Bonuses

Active vs Buffer tanking has came up time and time again on the forums. I know this is off topic being about rigs and everything but a lot of the problems with active tanking have been stated on here (CAP intensive, Slot intensive, poor vs larger than small gangs and only really good when using off grid T3 boosts - drugs and billions in implants).

However, one of the problems with active tanking ships are the ship bonuses themselves. The resist bonus and the repair amount bonus don't compare. This becomes blatently obvious in remote repair situations because a resist bonus carries from active tanking to buffer tanking to remote tanking. The repair amount bonus only effects active tanking and also is only marginally better at active tanking than a similar resist bonused ship.

If the repair amount bonus also effected repair amount received many ships that were previously poor in fleet combat using remote repair would become viable ships.

Next look at increasing the bonus from 7.5% to 9% repair amount received. What you end up with is ships with resist bonuses get better buffers but lower active and remote tanking ability and ships with a repair bonus get lower buffers with better active and remote tanking abilities.

Rigs

The issues with rigs have been stated in this thread a few times and I would like to echo what has been said;

One of the best suggestions in here has been to remove the flat bonus a rig gives and give it a % per level bonus. This would gave the skills far more meaning and as they stated balancing the rigs becomes very easy. Tweaking the rig per level bonus up or down depending on how well it appears to be scaling and making the utterly useless rigs appealing.

Almost everyone agrees that calibration points needs to be reviewed. CCC's and extender/trimarks are far too cheap where as other rigs are far too expensive.

Stacking penalties! These need to be considered and carefully balanced.
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#297 - 2012-04-25 11:32:11 UTC
Rn Bonnet wrote:
You can not balance the prevalence of active vs passive tanking. Many have stated that active tanking "has its place in small gang and pve." What they have not explained is why.

The problem fundamentally lies in the nature of active tanking. On an active tank the more DPS is applied (aka the more ships involved) the less net damage is required. On a passive tank the same net damage is required no matter how many ships are involved. A simple mathematical model of how long it takes an eve ship to die might look like this:

timeToDie = EHP / (NumberShips * DPSPerShip - TankedDPS)

If we take to ships, one with 100k EHP, and no active tank and one with 50k EHP and 1200 dps tanked against ships averaging 600dps we obtain the following equations:

timeToDie = 70,000 / (NumberShips * 600)
timeToDie = 50,000 / (NumberShips * 600 - 1200)

This means after six ships, the _beastly_ 1200DPS active tank is less effective than the somewhat mediocre 70k EHP passive tank. If you happen to like Big O notation (asymptotic arguments), assuming that we fix average DPS:

O( E / N ) > O ( 1 / (N - T)) for E > T


The problem is if you boost active tanking so that the crossover point becomes high, it now becomes impossible for ships to kill each other 1 on 1. Active tanking is more or less unfixable, beyond perhaps taking some time to insure that "active tankers" are more effective against 1 ship than an EHP buffer.


This is a good way of thinking that does not take into account some crucial things:

1. While active tanking gives you a stronger tank, it is not supposed to be cap stable. That means that in your calculations the timeToDie for active tanking is hard limited.
1.1 With inferno we're likely to see fueled shield boosters: once you run out of boosters, your tank fails.

So there is a time after when your tanks fails and you eventually die. Active tanking must not be cap efficient. And we can have diversity between shield and armor, as always: shield active tanking lasts for less, but it can be stronger; while active armor tank is more cap efficient but is also weaker.

That said, I think that having active shield tanking on Angel ships could really be interesting. Of course, we need fueled shield boosters for that, otherwise it is not feasible.



Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#298 - 2012-04-25 12:06:49 UTC
Camios wrote:

That said, I think that having active shield tanking on Angel ships could really be interesting. Of course, we need fueled shield boosters for that, otherwise it is not feasible.



Why not ? Because angel pilots would have to learn to manage their cap ?

I heard a long time ago when I was learning EVE that "cap is life". Of course it's easier when your cap is only used for your prop, but that's a bit against this statement I think. Minmatar, angel and most caldari ships don't have any hard pressure on their cap, so why crying when a suggestion suggest to use it ?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#299 - 2012-04-25 13:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Did everyone forget the active tanked maelstrom?

And why all the hate for extender type rigs? (do people just fail at the game?)

The only major change that needs to be done is removing the speed penalty from armor resist and nano bot/pump rigs. Possibly the same for the equivalent shield rigs but I think reduced penalty rather than removed penalty would work better for balancing purposes.


There is a compelling arguement for making the HP rigs give a percent per level in the relevant skill rather than a flat percent for having them fitted but personally I don't see this enhances gameplay and adds more grind to the more fundamental aspects of the game which will only help to put off newer players - grinding upto some kinda of achievement i.e. being able to fly capital ships with a worthwhile long term goal is fun, grinding as a new player just for core functionality isn't (something a game like eve needs to keep finely balanced if it wants to pull in more new players).
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#300 - 2012-04-25 13:30:49 UTC
Hannott Thanos wrote:
So now, not only have Gallente ships the slowest speed, they also have way less hp buffer to spend on the hour and a half it takes to catch up with anything with shields.
These armor/shield rigs help the other races much more than Gallente because Gallente baseline HP is in hull structure (there are no equivalent structure HP rigs) and therefore they don't get as large of a tanking boost. Nerf these rigs and Gallente ships get BETTER overall in comparison to other hulls.