EVE Search - Buffertank - only way to pvp?

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Buffertank - only way to pvp?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sanji Guado	Posted - 2009.06.03 18:28:00 - [1] i'm a pretty old lowsec pirate and i've been through a lot of changes in eve but... this time, it's the first time i really would like a change! the time has come that almost everyone in a good lowsec pvp gang fits buffertanks. of course, they're good, especially in spidertank bs gangs or when u got your nice logistics on your back. that way in gangs they have almost no disadvantage. i'd like to see a change here: make active tanks more useful in fleets again! and no, NOT only the factionfit ones, the tech 2 ones aswell! currently any active tank fleet dies to a rr fleet if its a larger scale battle (in a lowsec point of view like 5vs5). why? because the cycles of the repairers or shield boosters are too long to rep up against high burst damage of many ships. my suggestion: change the way of repair and shield boost modules in a way, that they not give you armor or shield in a cycle based system. "just" make it floating, like the passive shield recharge rate. besides i'd like to see a nerf on rr so that buffertank combat gets less attractive. (no, i dunno how it should b nerfed but it should! :P) as i said, i'm a lowsec pirate myself and ofc i fly the same buffertanked **** in gangs right now cause it IS just way better than active tanks in pvp but i'd like to have the OPTION to fly active atleast while not being so far behind the buffers! (i now that u guys gonna start off with "wtfstfu, active tanks rock, just watch the vids of those wtfbbqownerz like darknesss or wildcat!"... i wanna b able to tank a bit without having to spend 2.6 bil on a factiontank for a nightmare or 4.6 bil on a factiontank for a kronos!) thanks for your time o/
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:02:00 - [2] Remote repping IS active tanking. Active tanking is very common in PVP, that's why you see so many RRs. Remote repping is just active tanking for larger fleets. Active tanking is fine in smaller groups.
Fille Balle Dissolution Of Eternity Ethikos Trade Alliance	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:23:00 - [3] Right right right... he meant a LOCAL ACTIVE TANK samrtie. Btw, I agree with op. Local active tanks are dead. Even in small scale they're rubbish, which says it all really. They need a boost. Atm it takes way too long for a booster/repper to catch up with a buffer tank, so people are using buffers in 2 vs 2 even. It's terrible /Signed
Elaron Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Elaron on 03/06/2009 19:35:15 CCP deliberately designed active self-repairing so that it is difficult to create permanently running tanks that can resist all the damage inflicted by a single opponent of the same size class with the same skill profile. Because of that, it does not scale well at all, and in turn it seriously degrades the value of the ships that have a related bonus, like the Hyperion and the Sleipnir. I think the devs are reluctant to look at tanking as a whole, mostly because they would have to delve very deeply into the dynamics of combat. In general, the present system works well, other than the issues with certain ships, which could get some help in the form of allowing their bonus to interact in some manner with remote repair modules (sending or receiving - but not both).
Daedalus II	Posted - 2009.06.03 19:41:00 - [5] I had a suggestion I tried lobbying for a while ago. The main idea was that the more dps a ship takes the smaller it's sig radius becomes, in turn making it harder to hit. I think that mechanic would sort of benefit active tanks in that a single ship can't take such huge amounts of damage that they can't be actively tanked, at least for a while. It would also punish remote repping in such a way that the signature radius of the target increase if you remote rep someone.
Kel Nissa	Posted - 2009.06.03 22:05:00 - [6] The main idea was that the more dps a ship takes the smaller it's sig radius becomes, in turn making it harder to hit. In other words you thought about a mechanic ending like todays "primary xxx". It would be great to see something which is a benefit for strategic combat (necessarity to spread fire) and giving active tanks a real purpose. But currently its not only your described issues working against active tanks. Its also module lag - passive tanks got no issues with that.
Sanji Guado	Posted - 2009.06.03 22:34:00 - [7] ofc i meant local active tanking :) the sig idea sounds interesting, like reducing the sig of something for maybe 15% per ship that is shooting it. that way spreading fire would be necessary and local active tanking might come back to live since it would be a load of work for logistic ships to switch targets all the time!
Arthur Frayn V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N	Posted - 2009.06.04 16:17:00 - [8] Active tanking at the battleship level is fine. Ships like the hyperion and maelstrom do this particularly well. It's the cruisers and battlecruisers that reign supreme with buffertanks. Frigate and cruiser class reppers and boosters need a boost, imo. They have no real value in pvp where being primaried usually means you're fucked, or even pve where anyone can passive tank or speedtank to run missions. -- Eventus stultorum magister.
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.06.04 16:36:00 - [9] Originally by: Arthur Frayn Active tanking at the battleship level is fine. Ships like the hyperion and maelstrom do this particularly well. It's the cruisers and battlecruisers that reign supreme with buffertanks. Frigate and cruiser class reppers and boosters need a boost, imo. They have no real value in pvp where being primaried usually means you're fucked, or even pve where anyone can passive tank or speedtank to run missions. I run a small repper on all my rifter/AF setups.
Seishi Maru M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.06.04 16:39:00 - [10] RR is the ONLY way tht repair canescalate alongide damage on this game. It does not need any nerf. In fact needs a BOOSt to amek it doable for all sizes of ships (increase range of all RR modules and reduce fittigns from shield transporters) Somethign can EASILY be doen to help self repair. Change self repair overheat. Make so overheat creates a MASSIVE boost to self repair , but for a short period (make the heat on these modules be high). When I speak about a massive boost I am thinking on something like 25% cycle reduction and 25% extra ammount.....
Kel Nissa	Posted - 2009.06.04 17:31:00 - [11] Just a thought .. Its common in eve that there are many targets focusing on one ship. Is it really wrong when local reppers do their job well? I mean just think about: What would happen when all local reppers get a factor 10 boost (applied by a combination of cycle reduction and rep amount increased) Would it be wrong when its easy to outrep damage of a single opponent, when most fights end in X vs 1 in eve? To be honest, i know some players trying to find good 1on1's but its damn hard to find them even if you search specific for such cases.
Izo Alabaster Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company	Posted - 2009.06.04 18:16:00 - [12] Originally by: Kel Nissa Would it be wrong when its easy to outrep damage of a single opponent... Yes, yes it would be VERY wrong. If it takes more than 1 person to kill any 1 person, then that leads to massive blob warfare, as any time you go looking for a fight, you MUST bring at least 1-2 wingmates just to break the tank of a similar sized ship. That = boring. Furthermore, they already have ships built like what you describe. They're called Drakes, and they're among the most uninteresting ships in the game to fly* (yet sadly one of the most common). Just imagine a fleet of Drakes vs. another fleet of Drakes, circling each other (slowly) firing missiles, patting themselves on the back at how much their Drakes can all tank and how no one can break their passive failtank, etc. Boring. Unrisky. Unexciting. Uneventful. We would have to change the name of EVE to Space-WoW. The system in place currently works, and works pretty well. An active tanking local armor repping gang will generally die to a similar buffer tanked gang. Active tank = PVE. Buffer tank = PVP. It works. * = disclaimer: Yes, I'm aware you can successfully PVP fit a Drake. I don't need someone to point out how awesome they think their PVP FailDrakes are.
LUH 3472	Posted - 2009.07.25 16:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Daedalus II I had a suggestion I tried lobbying for a while ago. The main idea was that the more dps a ship takes the smaller it's sig radius becomes, in turn making it harder to hit. I think that mechanic would sort of benefit active tanks in that a single ship can't take such huge amounts of damage that they can't be actively tanked, at least for a while. It would also punish remote repping in such a way that the signature radius of the target increase if you remote rep someone. this is cool and maybe with some additional tweaks could make fleetfights more then just f12345 boom f12345 boom f123 oh snap
Valandril Caldari Ex-Mortis	Posted - 2009.07.25 17:04:00 - [14] Active shield tanks are fine. Active armor tanks are not fine, you know that you got a problem when ship with active tank bonus (brutix/myrmi) is better off with passive fit. And no to any stupid ideas posted by idiots to "reduce" blobing, simply active armor tank needs a minor buff around 10% and it should be fine. Do not discuss moderation in your signature. Zymurgist
Bibbleibble	Posted - 2009.07.25 17:06:00 - [15] Why not just make overheating better for active tanks? That avoids the problems of unbreakable tanks and even more screwed up PVE balance. ________________________________________________ For changes to Minmatar Battleships click here (also with a review of the Muninn!)
Tarron Sarek Gallente Biotronics Inc. Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.07.25 17:40:00 - [16] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 25/07/2009 17:41:05 I think (local) active tanking is fine as it is. Any boost could make ships like dual rep Dominix or Hyperion too strong. The thing is that local tanking isn't bad. It does work as intended. It's just that buffer tanks and remote repairing is so much better. Local tanking doesn't scale with numbers, while damage and remote repair does. So from my point of view one viable modification to the current system would be an improvement in energy efficiency of local repair/boost compared to remote modules and a slight decrease in buffer tank effectiveness. At least the latter will hopefully be a result of coming rig changes. For the former energy consumption of remote repair modules should be raised (yeah I know, call it nerf if yoou like) and perhaps an additional skill to further reduce energy consumption could be implemented (requiring lvl 4 of whatever skills). With maxed skills the energy efficiency should be only slightly worse than now. That means specialized pilots/gangs will still perform well, while non specialized gangs will do considerably worse than now. Desired results: -> Less incentive to fit remote repair. -> More incentive to fit local active tank. -> Smaller hp buffers, thus shorter fights, which should make all hp-boost-complainers happy. -> More meaning for alpha strike and burst damage, which should make projectiles more attractive. -> More energy dependant fittings, giving cap warfare more meaning, boosting Nosferatus and Amarr Recons. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
darkmancer	Posted - 2009.07.25 18:15:00 - [17] I'd like to see an increase in rep amount & an increase in cap used on active tanks. It'd make them more competitive vs buffer tanks anyway. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.07.25 18:46:00 - [18] You can't solve active vs passive balance without changes to focus fire. Increasing local tank effectivness will either create a stalemates in small fights or won't be enough. Boosting overload bonuses will greatly increase dock\undock games and gate deaggroing. Nerfing buffer tank will return us back to 2004 and into the age of gank battleships. Shameless plug of my ideas on topic if anyone bothers: New mechanics for warp scrambling - solves a lot Active\Passive tank balance, Focus fire issue. Idea from Starcraft 2.
Naran Darkmood Gallente Firman AB 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.25 19:44:00 - [19] Originally by: Daedalus II I had a suggestion I tried lobbying for a while ago. The main idea was that the more dps a ship takes the smaller it's sig radius becomes, in turn making it harder to hit. I think that mechanic would sort of benefit active tanks in that a single ship can't take such huge amounts of damage that they can't be actively tanked, at least for a while. It would also punish remote repping in such a way that the signature radius of the target increase if you remote rep someone. This actually sounds like a very good idea. Originally by: Shadowsword It's a good thing you're not in charge of balance, my stupidometer just exploded at the sight of this thread...
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.25 20:33:00 - [20] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 25/07/2009 20:36:15 Originally by: Arthur Frayn Active tanking at the battleship level is fine. Ships like the hyperion and maelstrom do this particularly well. It's the cruisers and battlecruisers that reign supreme with buffertanks. Frigate and cruiser class reppers and boosters need a boost, imo. They have no real value in pvp where being primaried usually means you're fucked, or even pve where anyone can passive tank or speedtank to run missions. Wrong. Me in my buffer tanked Torp Raven compleatly outperforms my mate in his T2, BS level 5, active tanked Hyperion in 1v1s we have tested. And when you add more ships to it in real PvP, well, by by active Hyp. Now, against any non BS, the Hyp can perfomr ok, but then again when is that a likly scenario? Active tanking sub BS is even more lols tho. Now, i would like to be able to active tank my Raven in PvP, but the T2 shiled tank is rubbish, 230 cpu for a large T2 booster? lol wut? its 60 more CPU then the best named. So using torpedoes and active tanking can not be done, unless you mkae some lol faction fit. Until an active tnand can outperfom the damage from 1 or two other ships, its not viable. And if the active tank can outperfoim 2 other ships, well, more blobbing will just ensue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Zephyr Mallory Starfire Oasis Thalion Syndicate	Posted - 2009.07.25 22:53:00 - [21] Tanking in PVP is about knowing just how much defense you can trade for offensive power in your setup to remain a serious threat without becoming a paper tiger. As a pretty old lowsec pirate you should be well aware of this. It sounds to me like this whole proposal is a thin facade hiding your rabble about getting tackled by a pair of guardians in lowsec which you didn't have a chance in hell of breaking or getting away from (Or possibly basilisks), and subsequently violated in many un-fun and non health-conducive ways by their friends while you could do little more than hold your ankles. Salvage Ninjas are Annoying and Lame, but within rights.
Kumq uat Gallente Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.26 16:10:00 - [22] Really depends on the ship. Certain ones thrive on the buffer tank setup which is an out DPS them before they kill you thing. It allows you to fit more guns at the cost of potential survivability. Now if you have a logistics ship with you your potential just shot up quite a bit. All the same sometimes I hate to lose the speed that a buffer tank takes away. www.eve-pirate.com original author Please resize your sig to a maximum of 400 x 120 and a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.26 17:08:00 - [23] Originally by: Kumq uat Really depends on the ship. Certain ones thrive on the buffer tank setup which is an out DPS them before they kill you thing. It allows you to fit more guns at the cost of potential survivability. Now if you have a logistics ship with you your potential just shot up quite a bit. All the same sometimes I hate to lose the speed that a buffer tank takes away. 1. Train shields 3. ... 2. Profit! ;D -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Kumq uat Gallente Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.26 18:08:00 - [24] Shields are gay and also fitting a shield buffer tank totaly negates my halo implants. www.eve-pirate.com original author Please resize your sig to a maximum of 400 x 120 and a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal
Verlokiraptor All Around Research Inc Onslaught.	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:51:00 - [25] Originally by: Daedalus II I had a suggestion I tried lobbying for a while ago. The main idea was that the more dps a ship takes the smaller it's sig radius becomes, in turn making it harder to hit. I think that mechanic would sort of benefit active tanks in that a single ship can't take such huge amounts of damage that they can't be actively tanked, at least for a while. It would also punish remote repping in such a way that the signature radius of the target increase if you remote rep someone. I agree with the purpose of the idea, but it needs balancing. Basing it on "damage taken" doesn't work at all: it means resists are bad because they slow this effect and cancel themselves out. I'll comment further in the actual thread.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.26 21:18:00 - [26] Originally by: Kumq uat Shields are gay and also fitting a shield buffer tank totaly negates my halo implants. Shields have a sexual orientation? Or are you refering to them being happy? Anyways, shileds is not a person. You better get that fact straight. Your loss for not using them tbh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Hiroshima Jita	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:08:00 - [27] You should never be able to completely tank one other guy in your size class with simular skills without completely gimping yourself. If you could you'd have a solo pwnmobile. Therefore with multiple people shooting you you must buffer because if an active tank can't fully withstand one person, two people shooting at you translates into the equivalent of one shooting at you and you are untanked. BOOM. Active tank only works when you're being attacked by inferior foes. Ie Frigate gang attackign a BS. I active tank my sleipnir but the main defense is that I nano it around and try not to take severe dps in the first place. I would be happy to see all self rep bonus go away and become more useful things. As it is they are mostly useless and often ignored.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War Banzai Boyz	Posted - 2009.07.26 23:55:00 - [28] Unnerfing overheating effects and removing the stacking penalty on aux nano pumps could be the first step. Will it encourage more dock/undock games? I doubt, these are already extremely lame and serve both small scale warfare and blobby one. The next step is to roll back those HP boosts, at least partially. It's really that simple. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:12:00 - [29] Active armor tanks shouldnt even exist tbqfh.
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.27 00:25:00 - [30] EVE has been moving toward "less gank, more tank" since 2005, slowly but surely I think what puts passive tanks over the edge is the existence of cheap "15% more armor/shield HP" rigs. For t1 ships, you get 52% more armor or shield. For active tanking, the bonuses are either stacking penalized or force more cap use - and cap issue is already very sensitive in EVE due to extended battle duration As far as high end faction gear goes, active tanking is the best. But for low end and t2 gear, passive is the way to go. Not to mention the additional benefit of DDD resistance. The only reasonable thing CCP can do now is to introduce stacking penalty on trimarks and shield extender rigs. But even such common sense thing would take a lot of convincing.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.