Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
204
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 18:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
This is a bit longwinded and requires some mental flexibility from the reader. I have put considerable though into the ideas expressed here so I think it's worth reading if you care about fixing active tanking.
The problem:
The protection granted by an active tanked ship decreases dramatically against multiple targets. As such buffer tanks are generally preferred because they offer a guaranteed level protection.
The problem is not that active tanking cannot be effective. It can be very effective in 1vs1 and small scale combat, especially in ships with tanking bonuses.
The problem is that active tanked ships have almost no flexibility. They only work in a narrow band of incoming dps.
Let's take a Brutix for example. With a given fit, it can tank 421 and deal 564 dps. If it were to fight another, identically fit Brutix, the time to death would break down as follows:
Shield: 8.6 seconds Armor: 38.4 seconds Structure: 10.8 seconds Total: 57.8 seconds
If we increase the incoming damage by only 50% it breaks down like this:
Shield: 5.7 seconds (-33%) Armor: 12.9 seconds (-66%) Structure: 7.1 seconds (-33%) Total: 25,7 seconds (-55%)
This more than halved the time to death. In contrast, the time to death of a buffer tank would be reduced by -33% with a 50% increase in incoming dps.
It only gets worse for the Brutix from this point on as incoming dps increases.
Where CCP went wrong:
They correctly recognized that active tanks need to have greater burst tank on demand that is unsustainable for longer periods of time. This is why I believe Ancillary Shield Boosters were added because that's exactly what they do.
The core problem still remains though: past a certain threshold of incoming damage they start to massively lose effectiveness in the same manner as illustrated in the example above.
All the ASB has really done is shift this threshold higher by increasing the amount tanked and allowing more tanking modules to be fitted. This threshold is so high that a well tanked ship with ASBs has a tank that is unbreakable by ships of the same size class. The conventional counter to active tanks (energy neutralizers) is completely ineffective. ASBs are creating more problems than they solve.
How to design a good solution:
In my opinion a good solution must meet the following requirements:
1) It should allow active tanked ships to greatly increase their burst tank. The ASB achieved this. 2) Said burst tank must be unsustainable for longer periods of time. The ASB achieved this quite well by being tied to cap charges. 3) It must be a flexible system that can adapt to different levels of incoming dps. The ASB achieved this in part (pulsing to adapt to dps levels, but it also folds very suddenly past a certain threshold) 4) It must apply to armor and shield tanking equally. The ASB failed here. The ASB failed here. 5) It must have a clear counter and not harshly affect solo/small gang play. The ASB failed here.
What I would propose:
Several scripts of different strength for armor repairers and shield boosters that increase the amount repaired while decreasing cap efficiency. These meet all the five requirements.
The logic behind this is simple. These scripts are nothing but a way to convert capacitor into hitpoints quicker. The conversion efficiency however is reduced so using them is ONLY desirable if the ship would otherwise die a quick death. This is important because it distinguishes them from the ASB which is even better solo than in groups.
The effect of the scripts could look similar to this:
2x Output script: -50% cycle time, +100% activation cost. 3x Output script: -66% cycle time, +200% activation cost. 4x Output script: -75% cycle time, +300% activation cost.
Note that these numbers are only an illustration of the concept, not what I believe would be balanced. It would take more work than I'm willing to do at the moment to figure out the reasonably appropriate numbers.
Another important difference between the ASB and these scripts is that scripts are very flexible. A regular active tanking setup can instantly switch into an unsustainable burst tank mode. It's similar to buffer tanks in that you do not have to prepare for specific situations for it to work.
How would these hypothetical scripts work out in practice?
Without scripts, the Brutix' cap lasts 8m 50s (51.6 expended vs 49.3 created). It's basically stable as long as it doesn't get neuted or uses the MWD. A Medium Cap Booster is providing most of the cap. As seen earlier, it dies in 57.8 seconds because the repairers cannot completely keep up.
With a 2x Output script, the repairers can easily keep up. The efficiency of the repairers drops from 3.16 to 1.58 hp/cap though. The natural regeneration and cap booster provide 39.5 cap per second.
Assuming perfect micromanagement and starting with full cap, the pilot could at most get 3842 repaired hitpoints out of his capacitor, and 62 hp/sec as long as the capacitor is running. Thus we can model the effect of this script by simply adding that much HP to the Brutix and then pretending that it reps 62 hp/sec which after resistances is 199 dps tanked. The result:
Shield: 8.6 seconds Armor: 25.5 seconds Structure: 10.8 seconds Total: 44.9 seconds
As we can see, choosing increased output at reduced efficiency is a bad choice here as the Brutix actually dies. Unlike the ASB, these scripts would not make active tanking ships solopwnmobiles in 1v1 situations as per requirement 5.
In the scenario where we increase the incoming damage on the Brutix by 50%, the repairers can still keep up, so the numbers above are correct. Without a 2x script, the Brutix exploded after only 25.7 seconds. Using a 2x script is definitely a good choice when the repairers are overwhelmed. |
mxzf
Blackened Skies
1969
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 18:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sounds an awful lot like overheating reps but without burning out your modules to me. |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
204
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 18:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
mxzf wrote:Sounds an awful lot like overheating reps but without burning out your modules to me.
It's quite different actually. Overheating does not decrease cap efficiency. It actually increases it. The increase in armor/shield per second gained from overheating is also much smaller than what I'm suggesting (+30% for overheating vs +100% and more with these scripts).
The one thing these scripts and overheating have in common is that they're both mostly meant for emergencies. |
PinkKnife
Noir. Academy Noir. Mercenary Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 02:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:mxzf wrote:Sounds an awful lot like overheating reps but without burning out your modules to me. The one thing these scripts and overheating have in common is that they're both mostly meant for emergencies.
What? Scripts are only meant for emergencies? |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 03:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sounds similar to an idea I posted not too long ago.
With the introduction of the ASB there have been a lot of comments stating the ASB is OP. I just posted in another thread but I think the ASB isn't OP as much as it's ideally suited for the typical short, sharp fights found in EVE PVP.
What I'm wondering is whether or not there is room for scripts to be added to standard booster tanks, both shield and armor, to make them be able to adjust to a situation as needed and making them more competitive in the area where the ASB is currently excelling.
Two scripts could be used to let active users decide between greater cap efficiency or higher shield return.
Cap script- Reduce cap usage by 15%, decrease HP boosted by 10%.
HP script- Increase HP boosted by 15%, increase cap usage by 10%
Both scripts have their pro's and con's but they would provide more versatility for booster users.
Consider an X-L T2 booster. Using the first script you'd get Cap usage 80 dropping to 68, shield hp 600 dropping to 540
Using the 2nd script you'd get Cap usage 80 going up to 88, and shield hp 600 going up to 690
After one minute of use you'd get the following results- Booster no scripts: 960 cap used for 7200 shield Cap script: 826 cap used for 6480 shield HP script: 1056 cap used for 8280 shield
An ASB would use 12 cap boosters, return 11760 shield and be deadlined for 60 seconds During that 60 seconds of reload the regular booster would outperform the ASB.
Assuming you add a second ASB to cut out the reload time then we'll add a T2 SBA giving 36% more shield boosted. The ASB would put out 23520 shield in 2 minutes and use 24 cap boosters Booster no script: 1920 cap used for 19584 shield Cap script: 1652 cap used for 17625 shield HP script: 2112 cap used for 22521 shield
As the fight goes on the regular booster would eventually pull ahead of the dual ASB build due to gaps in reload times and running out of boosters. Granted that could take awhile but having the HP script would provide the short term boost to be competitive with the ASB. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Saul Elsyn
State Protectorate Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 04:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Wait so you're complaining that active tanking isn't as useful the more people shoot at you and that buffer setups make more sense?
Really, that's not really a surprise at all... or a flaw of game design. The very purpose of Logistics ships in fleet engagements comes from this facet of the way fights play out in EVE.
The ASB is a good example of a module meant only for small scale PvP... The reason no comparable repair system exists for armor is because it's much easier to fit multiple armor reps and be viable.
Burst Active tanking is for roaming pirates...
Continuous Active tanking is for mission running PvErs...
Buffer Tanking is for Logistic Supported Fleet Operations...
Sounds perfectly fine to me. Makes plenty of sense. |
Miss Everest
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 05:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
To be fair... (and I know I am going to get trolled HARD for these comments) and it seem people are missing this. Active tanking is almost useless. PvE or PvP I have always been told go for buffer over tanking. Regardless of a logistics or no logistics. It really is broken. Honestly it shouldn't require so much cap either to even attempt to make it useful.
And if you want to get something up your flightsuit about it actually being 'useful" then I know it will be for very specific scenarios only. Very select ones at that. Where as buffer tank is almost used for everything period.
It makes me sad seeing all these gallente ships with bonuses to armor rep this and that and yet never able to truly use it because I have to buffer it instead. And that makes the ship worse because it will slow it down since gallente ships require armor. Yet gallente ships are also close range fighters which means they need to be fast... I feel cheated using gallente ships.
And yes they do do a lot of damage but it does not always compensate. I am not saying gallente ships are really horrible but need some more love in my opinion.
Side point to this is carriers. The Chimera and Archon are prefered for their buffers and use of their cap. In fact that can out tank either active or non active then others. Where the Thanatos gets more damage it cant keep up cap or active tank compared to the others. I cant say anything about the other carrier since I honestly have never messed with it... |
Ruareve
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 05:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
I disagree that buffer tanks are the way to go for everything. The choice regarding which tank to choose is based on the anticipated fight size and whether you are talking PVE or PVP.
PVE- Active tanks are the way to go for lvl 4's while buffer tanks are better for Incursions.
PVP- Duels or small scale without Logi support you'll want some form of active tank. Personally I run a buffer tank for most of my scouting but that's because I don't have the skill to monitor an active tank and think my way through learning pvp.
With Logi support you want to go buffer tank but that doesn't necessarily mean you go for pure HP buffer. Instead once you have enough HP to avoid getting alpha'ed the ideal is to go for resists. A few percentage points of resists with logi support can translate into a much higher EHP in the end.
IMO the biggest problem with active tanks is the need to use additional modules to get the desired effect where as a buffer tank can be gained with fewer slots. Resists are used no matter which tank you pick so in the end the question comes down to available slots.
One slot is probably best used with a buffer. Two or three slots you'll want to consider an active tank. Active needs a cap mod and either a 2nd cap mod or else something to boost rep amount.
Reducing the dependency of active tanks on additional modules (ala the ASB) will go a long way to giving pilots more options to better fit their needs. Yet another blog about Eve- http://ruar-eve.blogspot.com/ |
Takeshi Yamato
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
208
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 07:23:00 -
[9] - Quote
Miss Everest wrote:To be fair... (and I know I am going to get trolled HARD for these comments) and it seem people are missing this. Active tanking is almost useless. PvE or PvP I have always been told go for buffer over tanking.
I agree that active tanking could use slight improvements, but this thread isn't about how to fix that. And active tanking isn't useles, it just has a very narrow band of dps where it's effective.
The goal is to make it viable to use active tanking in gangs of 2-4 people and be able to fight another gang of that size with buffer fits without a problem but without making active tanking overpowered in 1vs1 (the ASB makes it overpowered in 1vs1).
As the number of people involved increases, eventually buffer fit will become better and that's fine. With these scripts active tanking will become useless at much higher numbers of people involved compared to before.
Ruareve wrote:Reducing the dependency of active tanks on additional modules (ala the ASB) will go a long way to giving pilots more options to better fit their needs.
I disagree that the ASB is a good solution. It addresses some problems but also creates more problems. I also doubt that it's going to promote variety rather reduce it due to being overpowered. |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 07:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
ASBs are dumb as hell. Just cyan.
To be fair, so is active tanking as a concept with the exclusion of insane, deadspace fit, T3-boosted setups. I kind of liked how active tanking used to be: an expensive gimmick that could be used effectively with great judgement and skill, but one that is pretty terrible if your wallet or brain are lacking.
But yes, an active tank module that doesn't use cap is just silly. |
|
King Rothgar
Path of the Fallen
240
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 10:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Active tanking has always been a small gang or solo tool. There simply isn't a way to make it scale in any sensible manner. That said, it does offer a number of advantages over pure buffer. The first and most obvious is that with buffer, even a victory will leave you heavily damaged and unfit for an immediate additional engagement. This is not the case with active tanks, as long as you have cap boosters, you're good to go.
A second advantage is active tanks are more subject to pimping. You can pimp a buffer tank with fancy hardeners, a slave set if armor and a resistance ganglink but that's it. There are fancy plates/extenders, but they aren't any better than the standard t2 since their bonuses are completely irrelevant to the ships using them. Active tanks however are not limited by such things. You can pimp your hardeners, your repper/booster, you can use drugs and active tanks get three relevant ganglinks instead of just one. It adds up fast.
The addition of ABS's adds an interesting new capability. I've only just returned and didn't even know about these mods till yesterday so I can't comment too much on them. But I will say that they are interesting. They allow for around 60% more burst tank on a maelstrom, but you go from a 4 minute endurance to about 2. It doesn't strike me as overpowered since it appears you end up being able to tank less damage overall compared to a more conventional XLSB setup. The Troll is trolling. |
Katalci
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
121
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 05:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
-howdoIdeleteapost- |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |