| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
   |
Posted - 2009.05.08 21:12:00 -
[1]
The problem between active and buffer tank is a matter of scale. For small engagements they are roughly equivalent as it is now, but as numbers grow active tank gets less and less effective.
It is tricky to balance one end of this equation without unbalancing the other, but there is at least one way. Eve already tracks the sources of damage applied to a given target in order to produce the killmails. This information could be used to boost active tank proportionally to the number of ships firing at the target.
This would work in a way as a weak stack nerf regarding damage. How much you would gain in repair amount from each additional ship firing at you, and how it grows(it does not need to be linear), can be adjusted to balance it.
The bonus should apply only to local reps, which would help also to balance local rep against remote rep as well.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
DARTHxFREE
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 21:57:00 -
[2]
Edited by: DARTHxFREE on 08/05/2009 22:00:12
Got an idea for this...
Currantly +Resistance is more favoured due to it affecting..
Buffer Tank - Helps a lot
Active Tank - not as much as +rep but still a little
Remote Repping - 384 repaired on a ship with high resistance's is always better
And for +Rep Amount..
Buffer Tank - No Effect
Active Tank - /yay
Remote Repping - Shared cap...
So we can clearly see somthing is not right.
Simple solution..make +Repair amount affect remote repair.
This would make Gallente/Minmitar more of tank givers were the Amarr/Caldari are already the tank recivers.
Edit: forgot to add, this would make ships like the Hyperion usfull again as your not abandoning you ship bonus completly by trimarking.
/join Cheeze & Whine Club
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 22:00:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 08/05/2009 21:59:58
all lvl 5
rokh vs mael
same tanked amout with xl-booster 2 invu and boost amplifter, may be like 0.5% off i i rember. but 2-3 difrence max. Dont foget ifg both ships gets neuted rokh keep its bonus while mael dont.
60D GTC - shattared link |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 22:13:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: DARTHxFREE
Edited by: DARTHxFREE on 08/05/2009 22:00:12
Got an idea for this...
Currantly +Resistance is more favoured due to it affecting..
Buffer Tank - Helps a lot
Active Tank - not as much as +rep but still a little
Remote Repping - 384 repaired on a ship with high resistance's is always better
And for +Rep Amount..
Buffer Tank - No Effect
Active Tank - /yay
Remote Repping - Shared cap...
So we can clearly see somthing is not right.
Simple solution..make +Repair amount affect remote repair.
This would make Gallente/Minmitar more of tank givers were the Amarr/Caldari are already the tank recivers.
Edit: forgot to add, this would make ships like the Hyperion usfull again as your not abandoning you ship bonus completly by trimarking.
Although I agree with you that repair amount bonus should be improved when compared to resists bonus, and support your idea, what I wanted to discuss here is teh relation between buffer tank and active tanking in a broader sense, not only in relation to ship bonuses.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 04:33:00 -
[5]
This is a solution in need of a problem. Worse, it's a massively exploitable solution, what happens when I get a bunch of noob alts in Ibises to shoot me at all times? Oops, I just got an active tank that nobody can break.
-----------
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 08:06:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
This is a solution in need of a problem. Worse, it's a massively exploitable solution, what happens when I get a bunch of noob alts in Ibises to shoot me at all times? Oops, I just got an active tank that nobody can break.
Regarding exploits it all depends on how you do it.
If you give diminushing bonuses as the number of opponents grows you can assure it will never reach a ridiculous value. And the ibis are far from invulnerable, even if it happened all you needed to do was to kill the Ibis first which basically any ship can do.
A minimum amount of damage from one source for it to be computed in the calculation could be added in case it is needed, but I really doubt it would be needed.
Regarding the need, well, as it is now Active tanking is mostly useless in this game. There are only a few situations where it has some role. This suggestions would open a little more space to it, and an option to RR gangs and buffer tanking.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 08:13:00 -
[7]
This is the problem as I see it.
Resist bonuses:
- give more EHP
- give better local repping
- make remote repping more efficient
- aren't affected by cap
Local rep bonuses affect:
- give better local repping
What's better is that where you might expect a rep bonus to actually out tank a resist bonus (37.5% > 33.3%, afterall), it actually doesn't - in theory or in practice.
I see several possible solutions to this problem, and several problems with each solution:
- Change reps to be more powerful compared to plates. This has the problem of not actually evening out the playing field - anything that gets applied to a rep bonus gets equally applied to a resist bonus.
- Lower resist bonuses. Yeah, I suppose you could do that... I wouldn't be a big fan of it.
- Increase active tank bonuses. This seems like the most win, because it is a targeted boost at the problem area: resist tank bonuses being immeasurably more powerful/useful than active tank bonuses. However, it has problems with making active tanks harder to break in small gangs (Gavin's argument from another thread). This is largely offset by neuts, and would be a great stealth boost to utility slots. Another problem would be that it makes PVE easy with rep bonused ships. Yeah, it does make tanking easier. All things considered, it might break more than it fixes.
- Make remote rep bonuses apply to inbound remote repair. This would mean that rep bonuses would be about half as effective (by the numbers) as resist bonuses (still lacking EHP and cap invulnerability).
- Local rep bonuses could be turned into '5% repair and hitpoints', which would mean that EHP, local rep, and cap invulnerability are (somewhat) covered. Nudging it up to 7.5% (equal to current, plus HP bonus) would give a PVP fit Mael ~10K EHP and maintain current tanking. It still wouldn't address remote repair.
- Local rep => '7.5% repair and hitpoints', and rep bonuses now affect incoming repair as well. Same situation as above, but all the bases are covered (EHP [inferior to resist bonus, but still pretty darn good], local rep, remote rep, and cap invulnerability).
- Nerfing blobs and changing the metagame to support small PVP (where active tanks can actually thrive).
- Oddball ideas like the OP (damage stacking => bad idea, generally IMO)
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 12:09:00 -
[8]
I always considered that RR was the "gang" active tanking system as the larger the gang/gangs the more RR is available vs incoming DPS. The remote reps statistics may need adjusting (range especially) but overall i think its a fine system for use in gang v gang combat if it is adjusted properly.
"Local" repping howver is a problem, it is close to worthless in anything but 1 v 1 combat, its fitting and cap costs are gigantic and in a lot of cases so crippling that it makes active repping not viable at all for pvp on a huge amount of ships.
Possible solutions and issues:
1. Increasing Rep amount.
A. Doing this would not only effect ratting/misson ships to walk through mission even easier than the do already but also make solo ships that rely on high DPS to do their jobs (like blaster ships) pointless as they would not be able to break active tanks.
2. Reducing rep duration.
A. This would also cause the same issues as increasing the rep amount while also causing even more CAP issues.
3. Reducing fitting/cap consumption.
A. This would allow ships to fit and use a active tank without compromising other fittings like it does now, IE: needing to use low dps turrets and having major cap issues.
While a reduction in fitting/cap costs would not make active reps stronger being able to fit them without gimping your fit would at least allow a ship to do the same DPS as a gank/tank fit can have. Cos at the moment not only is active tanking weak but they also force the ship using it to comprimise its combat effectivness.
|
Cracken
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 13:02:00 -
[9]
All good ideas but why can't we take a page out of the shield booster handbook and add a repair boost amp.
The problems that have been pointed out so far are active tanks take a large amount of fitting and cap. gimping a ship dps wise; maybe give armor rep. bonused ships a larger bonus too the rep bonus say 10-12.5% per level.
|
Raimo
Gallente
Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 15:30:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
- Local rep => '7.5% repair and hitpoints', and rep bonuses now affect incoming repair as well. Same situation as above, but all the bases are covered (EHP [inferior to resist bonus, but still pretty darn good], local rep, remote rep, and cap invulnerability).
I don't know if it would be OP but I like it...
---
|
|
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.05.09 22:46:00 -
[11]
What I would like to see is:
1. A 50% increase in all local repairers/boosters effectiveness, preferably amount to avoid nasty cap side-effects.
2. Tweak requirements for repairers/boosters to allow for dual-rep setups with smallest/2nd-smallest available T2 guns so that rigs are needed if a player wants more firepower.
3. Increase in buffer modules requirements to hem in over-sizing (LSE/1600 on cruisers for instance).
4. Reduction in RR efficiency to half that of *new* local repairers (75% of current), tweaking carriers/logistics to remain on-par.
Do that and local repping becomes viable, it will probably still lose to the current buffer tanks but the fight will no longer be a foregone conclusion.
RR would still be viable but not on the scale where a single full-rack BS can tank an entire fleet for his buddies.
A change like that would catapult the current repair bonus on gallente/minmatar ships into the OP area so they would need to be tweaked, but the overall performance would/should improve.
|
Enden Assulu
Caldari
Blood Money Inc.
Blood Money Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.05.10 01:06:00 -
[12]
IMO everything is ok, my Hype does fine rep cycles and I wouldn't bother buffer tanking it. My Domi is good with an active or a passive tank and the Megathron just lends its self so well to a buffer tank. Although I have seen some nice active tanks done.
On the BC side of things the Brutix can have a nice active tank and the Myrmidon is easily superior with an active tank as opposed to a buffer tank.
As for the cruisers only ever flown Thorax/Vexor but I would probably buffer tank both due to the mid slot lay out on them not allowing for tackle/point/propulsion.
The frigate should probably be buffer tanked due to the fact they probably can't sustain a rack of blasters and a SAR for very long although honestly haven't flown any of them for ages.
Obviously as the engagement gets bigger the active tank will begin to fade into the back ground but there is no way to change this with out making active tanks OP and in this situation where there is enough people to break your tank fast enough then you are stuffed either way :)
So IMO it is all working as it should be and doesn't rally need a buff/nerf obviously buffer tanks will be superior on ships with limited cap but both systems have their merit.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |