Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 22:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
Active Tank vs Resistance Ship Bonuses
Now, letGÇÖs have a hypothetical battleship with a single active tank module running.
Battleship Shield/Armor Resist: 50% Armor Repair/Shield Boost amount: 1000 Armor Repair/Shield Boost cycle time: 10 seconds Therefore, this battleship has a effective tank of 200 dps.
Now, with a 5% per level bonus to resistance: Shield/Armor Resist: 62.5% Effective tank: 266.7 dps tank
Now, with a 7.5% per level bonus to armor/shield repair amount: Effective tank: 275 dps tank
Numerically, active tank bonuses confer about 3.38% better tank than the resist tank bonuses.
TL;DR, active tanking with resist bonuses gives a similar defence when compared to buffer tanking.
The point of this exercise is to demonstrate the near equivalence of both bonuses when it comes to active tanking.
Given that resist tank bonuses function for both active tank fits and passive buffer fits why not remove all active tank bonuses and replace them with resist bonuses?
That way, ships that are currently bonused for active tanks are on par with buffer fits when it comes to the interchangeability of fits, being able to tanked both actively and with a buffer.
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
497
|
Posted - 2012.03.22 23:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
Fit neuts, lose your pointless active tank. Buffer wins, everytime outside a few fits like active tripple rep Myrm or the really expensive pirate shield implants.
Better suggestion, nerf passive tanks and DCU II. Kill those buffers and let the active rep remain supreme! /sarcasmn |
Misanthra
Alternative Enterprises
47
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 00:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
problem is some like their active tank bonus. And have lots of experience with the resist bonus. enough to say they prefer the former.
Caldari pilots might find for example...20-25% resists bonus !> a good active tank (I think so anyway). Why you see the same old tengu fits not running the resist subsystem and favor active tank. this is for pve and pvp in the case of tengu. HAs a neut weakness, so avoid the neut as best you can lol.
Looking at bs's....the golem active tank boost is much preferred, for me, even at a lowly level 2 marauder than say a rokh at BS 5 with 25% resist bonus. I have flown both, assuming no neuts....I'll take the golem sb boost everytime. Especially when you try to bondo the world famous caldari em hole. Even at 25% at level 5...stack an resists to fill em and you get diminishing returns real quick. Golem ahs been pve only for me, but rokh has flown in pvp. Enough RF emp and em laser on the field....rokh goes boom. In my combat pilots case usually with lots of cap left. cap which probably could have run a sb to at least try to gtfo alive if not pointed or bubbled.. Thanks to a gaped by john holmes em hole, the more bondo you use to fill the hole, the worse your stacking penalties get. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Misanthra wrote:problem is some like their active tank bonus. And have lots of experience with the resist bonus. enough to say they prefer the former.
Caldari pilots might find for example...20-25% resists bonus !> a good active tank (I think so anyway). Why you see the same old tengu fits not running the resist subsystem and favor active tank. this is for pve and pvp in the case of tengu. HAs a neut weakness, so avoid the neut as best you can lol.
Looking at bs's....the golem active tank boost is much preferred, for me, even at a lowly level 2 marauder than say a rokh at BS 5 with 25% resist bonus. I have flown both, assuming no neuts....I'll take the golem sb boost everytime. Even at 25% at level 5...stack any resists to fill em and you get diminishing returns real quick. Golem ahs been pve only for me, but rokh has flown in pvp. Enough RF emp and em laser on the field....rokh goes boom. In my combat pilots case usually with lots of cap left. cap which probably could have run a sb to at least try to gtfo alive if not pointed or bubbled.. Thanks to a gaped by john holmes em hole, the more bondo you use to fill the hole, the worse your stacking penalties get.
I agree with you completely, but it sounds like you did not read the post in general. An resistance bonus effectively allows you to tank as if you have a rep bonus. Unlike resistances from modules, resistances from ship bonuses is not stacking penalized.
That 25% total resistance you receive from V skills gives you the SAME active tank as if you have the 37.5% bonus to rep. At no point am I saying nerf active tanks and buff buffer fits.
I admit however, this only applies to ships with the 7.5% bonus to rep per level, t3 cruisers work somewhat differently. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 06:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
+1 I'd take a 5% resist bonus over a 7.5% active tank bonus any day of the week... If the 7.5% bonus applied in incoming reps too, it might be slightly more viable... but as of now... I think its a fail bonus. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Verity Sovereign wrote:+1 I'd take a 5% resist bonus over a 7.5% active tank bonus any day of the week... If the 7.5% bonus applied in incoming reps too, it might be slightly more viable... but as of now... I think its a fail bonus.
It has its place. Giving these ships a 5% to resistance per level gives you about the same active tank capability, but with the added bonus that applies to buffer fits as well. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
46
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 07:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Personally I like the rep bonus on pve ships. It means your complex reppers do oh-so-much-more.
I can see your point if just using tech II mods though. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 08:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tchulen wrote:Personally I like the rep bonus on pve ships. It means your complex reppers do oh-so-much-more.
I can see your point if just using tech II mods though.
I'm not quite sure you read the entire post :D
It does not matter what reps you have fit at all. The effect is the same simply because you rep under increased resistance. |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
172
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 10:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
What you have to look at is effective HP vs active tank on both ships... then calculate how much their effective HP over time compared to how much DPS they are recieveing (if you know what I mean)
then find the tresshold of when higher effective HP is better than higher active tank... (if you suddenly get shot by 5000 dps, you will proberly survive longer with more effective HP than if you had more active tank)
now try doing that math (active tank bonus will be better often when just vs a few ships, 1-4 battlecruisers, after that the ehp from passive tank becomes better... depending on how pimped the active tank is or passive tank) |
Spugg Galdon
Callidus Temple Forsaken.Empire
122
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 14:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
This old debate again?
I think the only problem with the active tank bonus vs the resist bonus performance is when you look at spider tanking in fleets.
Active tank bonuses only apply to local reps. They do not help with any other form of tanking.
Where as resist bonuses reduce the amount of damage you receive giving you beter EHP (but not actually more hitpoints) which gives you better spider tanking performance.
Because the active tanking bonus does not "carry", like the resist bonus does, into spider tanking I would say the only thing that really needs to change is that the active tanking bonus should become:
7.5% bonus to shield booster / armour repair amount and shield transporter / remote armour repairer received
|
|
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:What you have to look at is effective HP vs active tank on both ships... then calculate how much their effective HP over time compared to how much DPS they are recieveing (if you know what I mean)
then find the tresshold of when higher effective HP is better than higher active tank... (if you suddenly get shot by 5000 dps, you will proberly survive longer with more effective HP than if you had more active tank)
now try doing that math (active tank bonus will be better often when just vs a few ships, 1-4 battlecruisers, after that the ehp from passive tank becomes better... depending on how pimped the active tank is or passive tank)
This is exactly why this change would be nice. I do have a feeling you didn't bother to read the post however :D
Probably my fault for having a somewhat misleading title. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:This old debate again?
I think the only problem with the active tank bonus vs the resist bonus performance is when you look at spider tanking in fleets.
Active tank bonuses only apply to local reps. They do not help with any other form of tanking.
Where as resist bonuses reduce the amount of damage you receive giving you beter EHP (but not actually more hitpoints) which gives you better spider tanking performance.
Because the active tanking bonus does not "carry", like the resist bonus does, into spider tanking I would say the only thing that really needs to change is that the active tanking bonus should become:
7.5% bonus to shield booster / armour repair amount and shield transporter / remote armour repairer received
This is an interesting concept. However, what about fleets that do not feature logistics, such as 2 man gangs and so on? |
Tidurious
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
197
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 18:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
No. You're missing the whole point about cap-stable permatanked mission ships, such mission-running Maelstroms. Having the resist bonus instead of the recharge bonus is NOT the same in EVERY situation.
Ships don't need to all be the same - if they did, this game would get really boring really fast. We need variety, and even if that comes in the form of doing effectively the same thing in several different ways, giving at least the perception of variety, that's a good thing. |
Fango Mango
University of Caille Gallente Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
If I can paraphrase the OP for those that do not understand math.
a) If you are using a local rep, the resistance bonus is just as good as the rep bonus b) If you are using a buffer tank or Logistics, the local rep bonus is useless. c) Since no-one uses local reps in group activities why provide a useless bonus and gimp those ships in a MULTIPLAYER game. d) The game has changed. Everyone uses logistics now, un-gimp those ships.
-FM
|
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 19:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tidurious wrote:No. You're missing the whole point about cap-stable permatanked mission ships, such mission-running Maelstroms. Having the resist bonus instead of the recharge bonus is NOT the same in EVERY situation.
Ships don't need to all be the same - if they did, this game would get really boring really fast. We need variety, and even if that comes in the form of doing effectively the same thing in several different ways, giving at least the perception of variety, that's a good thing.
I have a question. How does a Maelstrom fit that is cap stable become not cap stable if it has a resist bonus instead of a rep bonus? The bonus is to rep amount, and if you followed the math, you'd see that they tank about the same, and cap stability is never impacted.
That is true, that variety is good. But it should not come at the expense of effectiveness, especially when results in ships being looked over entirely. |
Garmon
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 20:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
gives a bigger incentive to fly said ships since you're not limited on what you can fit, what's not to love about that
Only complaint I have is that the (arty EHP tank) maelstrom doesn't need a boost and if this would go through it would need some sort of nerf to balance it, and maybe being very nitpicky, but sleipnirs in tournaments Check out GARMONATION 9 right now! Check out our site for PVP videos, guides and audio commentaries: www.EVEisEASY.com
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
661
|
Posted - 2012.03.23 23:08:00 -
[17] - Quote
I, for one, enjoy diversity and would rather have active tanking bonuses extended to utilize remote-repping, too, instead of just leveling off all the ships. Fon Revedhort for CSM 7 |
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
40
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 04:21:00 -
[18] - Quote
active tanking in general could use a buff, since not all ships benefit from it (my hawk does better passive-fit than active, stupid 40 second battery).
extending local tanking bonus to received logistics WOULD be a positive step :D Where the science gets done |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Molden Heath Angels
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 08:54:00 -
[19] - Quote
I HAVE GREAT IDEA
how about fly a ship with resist bonuses instead of asking resist bonus for ship which doesn't have them -¿ gee
stop roleplaying |
Laechyd Eldgorn
Molden Heath Angels
36
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 08:55:00 -
[20] - Quote
tankus2 wrote:active tanking in general could use a buff, since not all ships benefit from it (my hawk does better passive-fit than active, stupid 40 second battery).
extending local tanking bonus to received logistics WOULD be a positive step :D
only thing logistics need is huge nerfbat
they're currently most ******** thing in game
|
|
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 09:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:I, for one, enjoy diversity and would rather have active tanking bonuses extended to utilize remote-repping, too, instead of just leveling off all the ships.
tankus2 wrote:active tanking in general could use a buff, since not all ships benefit from it (my hawk does better passive-fit than active, stupid 40 second battery).
extending local tanking bonus to received logistics WOULD be a positive step :D
That is an interesting concept because it allows these ships to gain a tanking bonus in a fleet situation, which otherwise would not apply. However, it still leaves out the solo/sgw where the lack of logistics would mean the bonus is unfortunately moot.
Perhaps give it a 7.5% to repair/remote-repair/buffer bonus? That would work, but in the end it amounts to a resist bonus if you are simply looking at numbers.
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:I HAVE GREAT IDEA
how about fly a ship with resist bonuses instead of asking resist bonus for ship which doesn't have them
What most people forget is that the resist bonus is an active tanking bonuses in and of itself. Lets talk about the Abaddon vs the Hyperion.
Now the Abaddon receives a resist bonus, which means it has improved tank when dual rep fit (absurd as that sounds), it has improved tank when receiving repairs, and the bonus also applies when it fits a straight buffer, say with slaves.
The Hyperion, unfortunately, only receives its bonus when it has local reps fit on it, and not in either of the two situations mentioned above.
What happens then is that with these active tanked ships is that you are required to fit a specific fit in order to make use of its bonuses, whereas with resistance bonused ships you have more freedom with fitting, meaning the Hype, unlike the Abaddon, is far more situational, and fielded less often. And that is bad for variety in Pvp.
These repair bonuses are a vestige from an era of not-so-much-blobbing and back then, local tanks were far more common than they are now.
The intention of this post is to ensure that these active bonused ships remain applicable in more situations, Maelstrom aside, even more so now that CCP has mentioned the removal of the tier system in favor of the role system and a corresponding stat change.
Then, people might say, won't they be OP? Maybe. The Maelstrom might, but comparatively speaking, the Gallente/Minmatar tanking boats have comparatively fewer tankslots than their respective racial counterparts. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
227
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 11:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
Balance ships, not bonuses. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 14:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Balance ships, not bonuses.
Perhaps elaborate? |
Fango Mango
University of Caille Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 18:39:00 -
[24] - Quote
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:I HAVE GREAT IDEA
how about fly a ship with resist bonuses instead of asking resist bonus for ship which doesn't have them -¿ gee
stop roleplaying
Yes, please point me to the large lineup of gallente ships with resist bonuses . . .
The local rep bonus may have been a good idea once upon a time, but it no longer is.
Since the local rep bonus is much less versatile than the resistance bonus it should at least be stronger.
If the local rep bonus was say 12-15% per level then it would make it a worthwhile bonus.
-FM |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 23:17:00 -
[25] - Quote
Fango Mango wrote:Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:I HAVE GREAT IDEA
how about fly a ship with resist bonuses instead of asking resist bonus for ship which doesn't have them -¿ gee
stop roleplaying Yes, please point me to the large lineup of gallente ships with resist bonuses . . . The local rep bonus may have been a good idea once upon a time, but it no longer is. Since the local rep bonus is much less versatile than the resistance bonus it should at least be stronger. If the local rep bonus was say 12-15% per level then it would make it a worthwhile bonus. -FM
Personally, not too keen on increased rep bonuses, simply because of the limited application of this bonus, nonetheless, still interesting, might just get more people to active tank. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
158
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 06:47:00 -
[26] - Quote
This only effects PVP, where buffer is king, and is a heavy handed solution imo. I'd rather see changes that make active tanking viable in PVP, which would have far more reaching effects. |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 07:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:This only effects PVP, where buffer is king, and is a heavy handed solution imo. I'd rather see changes that make active tanking viable in PVP, which would have far more reaching effects.
this, the active tank bonus on a mission ship is more valuable then a spectrum resist bonus which may/may not be applicable to the specific rats being faced.
as the low / mid slots are easy to refit for specific resists while the rigs are not. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:20:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Ines Tegator wrote:This only effects PVP, where buffer is king, and is a heavy handed solution imo. I'd rather see changes that make active tanking viable in PVP, which would have far more reaching effects. this, the active tank bonus on a mission ship is more valuable then a spectrum resist bonus which may/may not be applicable to the specific rats being faced as the low / mid slots are easy to refit for specific resists while the rigs are not.
This is absolutely not true. Tank is a combination or resists and rep. The following will prove that this is not true.
Say you have a Maelstrom, and you want to resist tank it for a mission that does kinetic/explosive damage. Initially, the Mael has a kin/ex resist profile of 40%/50%. You put 2 of each active resist module on and you end up with the following resist profile of 85.9%/88.3%.
MATH:
Taking the value of the second stacking penalty to be 87%
Initial Kinetic = 0.4 1st Kinetic Resist = (1.00-0.40)*(1.00*0.55) + 0.40 = 0.73 2nd Kinetic Resist = (1.00-0.73)*(0.87*0.55) +0.73 = 0.85919
Initial Explosive = 0.5 1st Explosive Resist = (1.00-0.50)*(1.00*0.55) + 0.40 = 0.775 2nd Explosive Resist = (1.00-0.775)*(0.87*0.55) +0.775 = 0.882662 /MATH
And now, say we have a Maelstrom with the resist bonus of 5% per level. Your initial resist profile this time is 55%/62.5% and after those same resistance modules you have a profile of 89.4%/91.2%.
MATH Do you really want to see more of this? /MATH
Now, lets compare the resists on both of them. The original Maelstrom permits 14.1%/11.7% of the incoming DPS through, whereas the resist-bonused Mael allows 10.6%/8.8% of the initial DPS through.
Finally, lets say they have a single shield booster with a rep cycle of 10 seconds for 1000 shield per cycle for an effective defence of 100 dps.
Only considering the resists for a damage source that does only kinetic/explosive damage:
The original Maelstrom tanks = 975.2/1175 The resist-bonused Maelstrom tanks = 943.4/1136
As you can see the deviation between the two setups is approximately 3.3% (I'm lazy, so I used rounded numbers), which was how it was noted in the original post.
So specific tanking is not affected in any way, at all. Apart from that 3% because CCP likes nice numbers. A 6.666666...% bonus to rep per level would just look silly.
Now, you guys are going to ask, what about damage sources that deal variable proportions of dps? To answer that, isn't a shield boost bonus apply in the same exact blanket manner that resistances do? Yes.
Again, alot of people don't realise that the 5% to resistances is functionally equivalent to a rep bonus of 7.5% per level when it comes to active tanking, simply because as you take less damage, your reps are worth more. If you really can't be bothered to wade through the math, open up EFT and dual rep fit an Abaddon and a Hyperion and tell me how different their reinforced defence is.
wrote: This only effects PVP, where buffer is king, and is a heavy handed solution imo. I'd rather see changes that make active tanking viable in PVP, which would have far more reaching effects.
Active tanking is fully viable in pvp, just alot more situational that buffer tanking. This is largely due to human nature's tendency to aggregate in blobs, which make active tanking as a tanking style unviable. For those of you who do have active tanked in pvp, you'll agree with me that active tanks are limited in that they only tank up to about a certain dps. Once the oncoming dps exceeds your tank, you die very rapidly.
Also not to mention, that changing the balance between active rep bonuses and resistance bonuses will be a very contentious one, especially since some carriers already tank, pantheon and triage, with their resistance bonuses. Furthermore, these bonuses are inherently tied to ship slot layout, and you'll find its a huge can of worms as far implementing improved tank bonuses is concerned.
Moreover, don't discount the fact that not all PVE is about active tanking. A fair bit of PVE relies on RR (subcap l5s, wormholes, higher end plexes) and this bonus will permit these ships, that are intended in a tanking role, more so with the upcoming tiericide, to tank as needed, no matter where the reps come from.
TL;DR: resistance bonuses permit you to tank as well as you would (approximately) as active tank bonuses, where self-reps are concerned.
Also apologies for any spelling errors or missing punctuation from the autosave feature. |
Verity Sovereign
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
143
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 08:34:00 -
[29] - Quote
In case it wasn't clear the resist bonus doesn't have stacking penalties with hardeners...
At lvl 5:
The armor/shield resist bonus is the exact same thing as a 33.3% bonus to active rep, and a 33.33% bonus to EHP of armor/shield.
It is also a 33.33% bonus to incoming reps.
So do you want a 33.33% bonus to buffer, active tank, and incoming reps, or a 37.5% bonus to active tank?
It only allows you to sustain a tank 12% more incoming DPS when solo. (less than this field shield tanks, where the shield recharge is not insignificant, and the resist bonus increases the EHP regenerated by passive recharge)
Is a 12% higher active tank worth giving up a 33.33% higher buffer and 33.33% bonus to EHP of incoming reps?
Clearly the bonus is crap compared to the resist bonus, and the hull that has it must be pretty awesome to be balanced with such a crap bonus.
I'd argue the Gallente hulls do not qualify. Their slot layout doesn't have as many lows as the amarr ships, so their bonused tank isn't even as good, in fact many times they are shield tanked, making them 1 bonus ships.
A brutix is all about gank, its rep bonus is wasted. A myrm, as a PvE boat, may use its bonus, but I liked to shield tank it... The hyperion isn't a very good PvE boat - smallest gall BS drone bay(pretty sad when winmatar and Amarr BS's have larger drone bays), and no tracking bonus. The rep bonus is useless in PvP. |
Trini TCG
Capital Directive
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 09:31:00 -
[30] - Quote
Quote:The armor/shield resist bonus is the exact same thing as a 33.3% bonus to active rep, and a 33.33% bonus to EHP of armor/shield.
It is also a 33.33% bonus to incoming reps.
So do you want a 33.33% bonus to buffer, active tank, and incoming reps, or a 37.5% bonus to active tank?
This is fairly inelegant, to have multiple bonuses in one that duplicate the effect of a resistance bonus. Still the idea of a bonus on top of a bonus to active tanking is fairly intriguing, but it all boils down to CCP's design philosophy when it comes to ship bonuses, which are usually simple and clear cut.
Quote:It only allows you to sustain a tank 12% more incoming DPS when solo. (less than this field shield tanks, where the shield recharge is not insignificant, and the resist bonus increases the EHP regenerated by passive recharge)
Garmon mentioned something like this, regarding the Maelstrom and the resulting EHP, but I'm assuming (hoping) that the upcoming tiericide will bring Maelstrom EHP in line with the other ships in its weight-class, making this less of an issue all round.
Also, just for clarification's sake, how did you come up with the 12% figure? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |