| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Renarla
   |
Posted - 2009.10.20 02:12:00 -
[1]
Really need to be looked at- moreso armor tanks. The three (t1) ships with active armor tank bonuses- Myrmidon, Brutix, and Hyperion, all perform best with buffer shield tanks or even active shield tanks (in the Hyperions case). This seriously has to ring some alarms- ships with BONUSES to active ARMOR tanking are BETTER with SHIELD TANKS. How this hasn't been looked at yet is beyond me. CCP just hates Gallente I suppose. 
However, on another note, I now have one of those annoying sigs. |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 02:25:00 -
[2]
1) active armour tanks are too slot intensive
4) active armour tanks are very fitting intensive
The reps themselves take a silly amount of PG, and you need two for them to be worth a damn. Both are problematic; it's not that, eg. the Brutix does not do enough repping as such, it's the fact that any worthwhile rep on it means electrons and 0 magstabs which is the problem.
A two slot active shield tank, for instance, already makes some sense on tank bonused ships; even though XL cap booster cap consumption is really high. A two-slot (read: three if you count in DC) armour tank is well... useless.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Relatyve Mynd
Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 02:25:00 -
[3]
if you look around S&M you'll find plenty of (arguably) viable active myrm, brutix, and even (more arguably) hyperion fits. These days you can apparently shield tank anything, but there are plenty of viable dual-repper (or even *gasp* triple-repper) fits floating around. Look up Kessah's last thread for an example. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:12:00 -
[4]
active tanking is fail, Liang said so.
although honestly I try to stay away from active tanks as much as I can, only thing I would fly active crystal + blue pill Maelstrom. everything else I throw a passive and try to get a rep on for sentry guns, and/or safe spot repping later.
|
Visir
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:33:00 -
[5]
Active tanking is not horrible, and the three ships you mentioned in your post are all very good at it.
Brutix is simple, 2xMAR, 1x EANM, 1xDC,1x MFS
Myrm is 2xMAR, 3/2x EANM 0/1x Exp. hard, 1x DC.
Hype is about the same with 2x LAR.
If you dont have overloading and exile you will be lagging behind others tho.
|
Norwood Franskly
Minmatar
Fleet of the Damned
Hellstrome Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 06:53:00 -
[6]
You forgot Astarte and Eos they both suck though. As someone dual specced Gallente/Minamtar shield bonused active tank ships aren't that good either eg Claymore is imo better shield extended then active tanked despite the bonus. I used to active tank my Sleipnir (XL booster) but the things cap unstable as hell and you have to dedicate your rigs for safeguards or else pray the fight won't last more then 60 seconds.
The big problem is active tanks in pvp need cap injector + rep module and both are pretty powergrid intense modules. Shield tanking isn't as good as you might think either
eg Sleipnir: XL booster + med cap injector + mwd leaves 2 slots for hardners + tackle, not exactly awesome
~~~
[ 2009.02.05 09:37:43 ] Louis Trenker > - Who's ship is this?- It's a Titan baby.- Who's Titan is this?- BoB's.- Who's BoB?- BoB's dead baby! BoB's dead!
|
z0de
The Bastards
The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:03:00 -
[7]
active tanks work you just need to choose your fights, like everything else.
á
á
|
Davinel Lulinvega
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:04:00 -
[8]
Sleipnir is pretty good active tanked.
That's really the only ship I feel comfortable active tanking in. Others are either too vulnerable to neuts, give up too much dps/maneuverability, or simply can't muster enough tank to actually be useful over simply buffering.
 Originally by: CCP Tuxford
Now the op looks like a weirdo that can't read kekekeke!
inb4 stealth edit |
Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:33:00 -
[9]
Active tanks are often not so good, but they CAN be astounding.
Indeed, recently I've been flying a dual rep, cap injected, myrmidon with a rapid repair warfare link, auxiliary nano pump and 2x nanobot accellerators fitted.
It tanks like a beast...and if you take a nice hit of exile to go along with it...just wow.
My Pirate Blog |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 07:53:00 -
[10]
It's just so fitting-intensive. PG, CPU and slots. All too often it's more efficient to just slap a plate or LSE on and hope for the best.
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 08:33:00 -
[11]
Given the strengths of buffer tanks, active tank bonuses should be 10%/lvl not the current 7.5%
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 08:44:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 20/10/2009 08:45:36
Originally by: Nian Banks
Given the strengths of buffer tanks, active tank bonuses should be 10%/lvl not the current 7.5%
TBH 10% might be too low... yeah it might mean that some active tanks might be "unbreakable" in a 1v1 until they're neuted or run out of cap boosters, but as things stand now ...... I would only active tank if I was trying to stay out under sentry fire or knew I was going into a 1v1 that'd be honored (and maybe not even then...)
-Liang
Ed: I think how much of a boost they need can't really be answered until CCP decides just how big they want gangs to be. The bigger the gangs, the more active tanks need boosted - but the current situation of every Tom, ****, and Harry small gang obsoleting active tanking is kinda frustrating.
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 08:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Nian Banks
Given the strengths of buffer tanks, active tank bonuses should be 10%/lvl not the current 7.5%
Probably, yes. In addition, local armor repper fitting reqs should be lowered significantly. At the moment, the diff between fitting a plate (which is usually better anyway!) and a local repper is ridiculous.
Local reppers take much more grid than plates and the use ginormous amounts of cap and they are usually not fast enough to do you any good anyway (outside 1-vs-1). Triple whammy.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 09:01:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 09:02:22
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 09:01:24
Originally by: Liang Nuren
...
The problem with boosting active tanking to match idealized X gang size it's that it's completely wtf overpowered for smaller gangs (therefore practically mandating more blobbery) and underpowered in larger gangs.
That is simply bad and should be avoided. Some of us just don't like to have to blob to kill every guy who can fit reps and click on them.
The greatest problem of active tanking is that it nerfs everything else (particularly and specifically armour tanking) to achieve a passable tank. Active tanking takes a laughably large amount of slots and a laughably large amount of fitting. That is the problem; if you could fit a active tank with a good damage output, then there would be more situations where it's worth using.
Currently, a armour active tank typically means 0-1 damage mods (this is horrible) and lower tier guns. That is one of the large reasons why they suck; all active tanks do is tank.
Being able to just tank makes for preety bad PVP ships. Shield tanks are comparably better off here (less slot intensive for starters), although they tend to have their own problems (eg. regading cap use of things like xl boosters which make the tank non-fail) and such.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 09:19:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Marko Riva on 20/10/2009 09:19:33
Personally I'd like to see it the other way round; severe nerf to EHP fittings, fitting req increase for plates and extenders and possible a decrease in gained HP. Even if you try to solve the ships you're talking about fitting some LSE will still be viable due to speed and dps mods.
Make it so that LSE and plates are less desirable and all of a sudden you take away the problem, that would also bring amarr ships more in line because all of a sudden the huge cap use can become an issue if you need to both active tank and fire, more than the minor annoyance it is now due to buffer tanks and cap boosters.
-----------
ADM-I |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 09:40:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 09:42:03
What I'd like is this:
(1) Introduce "two in one" armour reps:
- fitting as 1.5 of current armour rep
- cap use of 2 current armour reps (same)
Rationale: this is a large reduction to the main problem of active armour tanks - slot issues, namely. It also alleviates fitting issues *somewhat*. Now you can get a worthwhile armour tank with expending 3 slots plus DCU (4 in total) or a semi-passable with 2 slots plus DCU which leaves room for two damage mods (or three but with a "meh" tank on anything nonbonused), and you just might be able to fight some higher tier guns. This alone makes active tanks noticeably more competitive for solo/small gang situations where they're *meant* to be used.
(2) Lower the fitting requirements of single reps to 75% of current fitting; lower their cap use to half of current cap use.
Rationale: this makes a single rep plus buffer tank actually *worth fitting*, for some situations, since now you will be able to run it for much longer.
(3) Change the penalty of armour rep rigs to something else then speed. Eg. shield amount. Or something like, eg. sig radius.
Rationale: in reality, the speed penalty of armour rep rigs (but not trimarks) makes a worthwhile rep tank have a very very huge penalty for all sub-BS ships. Speed is essential; consider that most rep bonused ships are gallente which have range of about how far you can spit. The speed nerf really *kills* using a rep tank on sub-BS ships.
(4) Reduce the shield booster cap requirements by 33%.
Rationale: the 'one size up' rep practically exists for shield boost tanks already, but it has one huge problem; even with a cap booster it requires a monstrous amount of capacitor. Not to mention that same size shield reps are incredibly useless even in buffer/rep combinations since they require a cap booster to run for any time period worth considering.
There you go, basically.
You can now fit buffer, buffer+rep, and rep, without your ship being so horribly gimped.
Sure, if you plan on engaging blobs then buffer wins; but guess what, not by that much, particularly not on bonused ships.
It becomes "whether my BC pops 15 seconds sooner when the blob comes", which means that you either picked the wrong fit (you fit a rep tank for a blobfest where it's not really desirable) or were going to die anyway (because you got blobbed solo).
I'm OK with buffer having a zone of superiority, as long as it does not gimp the active tank in a crucial manner like speed or DPS as it does now, which is the real problem of active tanking even in solo situations.
The extra DPS is what makes you live so many times, because the outcome so often depends on two things:
(a) can you break the target at all
(b) can you break the target before someone else joins the party
When it comes to both of these, any amount of personal tank doesn't cover up the lack of DPS.
Originally by: Marko Riva
Edited by: Marko Riva on 20/10/2009 09:19:33
Personally I'd like to see it the other way round; severe nerf to EHP fittings, fitting req increase for plates and extenders and possible a decrease in gained HP. Even if you try to solve the ships you're talking about fitting some LSE will still be viable due to speed and dps mods.
Make it so that LSE and plates are less desirable and all of a sudden you take away the problem
Yeah, only it takes the problem away in a bad manner.
Personally, I do a lot of solo work and small gang work, and I can tell you, basically, this: a nerf to buffer fittings with active tanks as they are is a nerf to DPS - and also a huuuuge nerf to solo/very small gang pvp.
The ability to kill a target before he can get support from 3 systems away is preety crucial, and I have to vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to cut DPS across the board.
Also, nerf buffer too much and you get only one viable fit, which is again crap.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Azirapheal
Amarr
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 09:46:00 -
[17]
the only problem with active tanking stems from peoples fascination with EFT and effective HP... and the hp buffs
the hp buffs wouldnt have been needed had they found a more elegant solution to the bookmark problem than warp to zero
Originally by: Azirapheal
i never ever thought id live to see the day.... that titans were nerfed for being FOTM HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
SoonÖ
|
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 10:04:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Marko Riva on 20/10/2009 10:05:48
Quote:
Yeah, only it takes the problem away in a bad manner.
Personally, I do a lot of solo work and small gang work, and I can tell you, basically, this: a nerf to buffer fittings with active tanks as they are is a nerf to DPS - and also a huuuuge nerf to solo/very small gang pvp.
The ability to kill a target before he can get support from 3 systems away is preety crucial, and I have to vehemently disagree with anyone who wants to cut DPS across the board.
Also, nerf buffer too much and you get only one viable fit, which is again crap.
I disagree, ofcourse in he current situation this would be the case but once the 2-3 plate BS monstrosities are gone, the 2 LSE drakes etc then you go back to actually have ships differ and they stop having stupidly high EHP fits. It would also be heavier on the fittings due to needing proper reps meaning you won't have the silly fitting you have today, like a geddon being completely over the top due to using plates and no fitting/cap hungry reppers meaning it can dump it all into turrets/dps.
Right now with the whole EHP crap we're at the same spot as we were with nano; it didn't matter what ship you had or which ship/racial pros&cons it might have, if you nanoed it successfully it worked. The over encompassing "LSE it and it works" mantra should be removed. The result of removing it is LESS massive EHP fit ships (in the case of properly tanked ships)meaning faster kills, and more fittings that require some thought and cap use meaning they can't be as focussed on gank&tank but they'll have to make a choice.
When doing that it would indirectly increase the usefulness of the active rep bonus ships and would require more well rounded SP's to make a ship work, right now you just keep pumping the cap 800's with your capless/effortless tank and get away with it. And just as with people being against the removal of the nano crap once it IS changed you'll see that all of a sudden normal gameplay gets a chance and ships that simply didn't cut it in the nano age start to be (more) viable again, diversity etc.
I have this slimmer of hope that once the current DD is gone they're going to address the EHP crap, EHP shouldn't be nerfed into the group but it should be changed to that it would be a viable option on certain ships, NOT the one and only answer for almost every situation as it is now.
-----------
ADM-I |
arbiter reborn
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 10:14:00 -
[19]
Meh its situational, gallente were desighned to be smaller gang and it can make sense in those situations, dual rep mega is win!
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 10:17:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 10:19:46
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 10:18:25
Originally by: Marko Riva
...
The problems are the following:
(1) Tanking is not a role in PVP, outside of the idea of "outlasting the other guy(s)". However, that outlasting better not take too long. As gang sizes go up, tanking is even *less* of a role, because personal tanks have a problem of a mathemathical nature.
It is this: a local tank is X (x=number of reps) of wasted slots until you're primary. Concentration of fire ensures that the amount of time these slots are not wasted is so minimal.
This is why in a blobfest the active tank will never, ever work. At a certain point it will always be a wasted slot because you won't get a rep (or a module, even) off before you pop 
It should have its place in smaller gangs, but the problem then is this: the higher DPS ships get primaried first. They die. Your tank contributed basically nothing, and higher DPS would have contributed much more. The tank fit needs to do proper DPS, or else it's worthless.
(2) With the focus shifted to tanking and less DPS, regardless of smaller EHP, the fights take much much much longer (since time to die = EHP/inflicted_DPS-tanked_DPS), possibly until one side runs out of cap boosters. This is a problem for everyone who doesn't like to blob.
I would rather have armour tanks deprived of their crucial disadvantage - namely, horrible DPS - which really kills their role in generic PVP - then everything being nerfed.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 10:30:00 -
[21]
I don't see an issue with blobs evaporating eachother in seconds, good riddance. Ofcourse you can (and should) state that this would make numbers work better but the thing is that it doesn't really change anything; in big fleets having 1-3 plates/LSE simply adds a few seconds to your life expectancy, in smaller fleets the massive EHP makes you a big wall that needs to be climbed before getting the reward. besides, RRBS gangs (or small gangs with a logistic) have proven that there's a cure for it.
The thing is that I like a different type of gameplay and I really don't see how the current gameplay is HELPING you in small gang or solo situations (apart from the "lets see how many I can kill before I go down" stuff) and I do feel that changed mechanics will make gameplay more diverse, will take more effort (not necessarily more time to kill) and make ships and fittings more interesting and on par with their ship/racial bonuses. The "warrior" style gameplay (hitpoints, resists and lets rush in headfirst) just isn't mine and I find it boring and simplistic.
-----------
ADM-I |
Veliria
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 11:03:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Veliria on 20/10/2009 11:03:29
Hyperion can actually PvP tank very well.
[Hyperion, Active Tank]
Large Armor Repairer II
Large Armor Repairer II
Damage Control II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Armor Explosive Hardener II
100MN MicroWarpdrive I
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
X5 Prototype I Engine Enervator
Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Ion Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Electron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Electron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Electron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Electron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L
Large Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Large Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Large Nanobot Accelerator I
Hammerhead II x5
Warrior II x5
Hornet EC-300 x5
No damage mods (not that it'll help all that much on Blasters being fubared), but it'll tank over 1000dps without overheating.
Might make for a nice bait or something.
Aside from that I also active tank my Sacrilege, keeping full use of it's mobility and speed as well as its large cargohold.
Dominix can reach a similar tank to this.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 11:28:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Veliria
Hyperion can actually PvP tank very well.
[…]
No damage mods (not that it'll help all that much on Blasters being fubared), but it'll tank over 1000dps without overheating.
Might make for a nice bait or something.
Great. That means that you need a whole three cruisers to kill it. Then again, it would take just as long if it were buffer fit in the same scenario, except that there's no fear of neuting in such a fit (and the buffer fit would also be able to project quite a bit more damage). 
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Veliria
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 11:50:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Veliria
Hyperion can actually PvP tank very well.
[à]
No damage mods (not that it'll help all that much on Blasters being fubared), but it'll tank over 1000dps without overheating.
Might make for a nice bait or something.
Great. That means that you need a whole three cruisers to kill it. Then again, it would take just as long if it were buffer fit in the same scenario, except that there's no fear of neuting in such a fit (and the buffer fit would also be able to project quite a bit more damage).
Buffer tanking a Hyperion?
Use a Domi.
|
Merbusent
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 11:52:00 -
[25]
worst thing considering your ship flaws most of what your deciding upon is a case which can be in high sec excaped from perhapse easier than waiting for non agression on a buffer tank.
Active Myrm tanks will abolish any concerns over your weight class considering a battleship has these same considerations to cap but which none have an active armor tanking bonus, a active shield tank bonus is the real baseline such as the cyclones ability to be totally overwhealmed and never tackle its target.
Gallente have there dps raw from the neutron cannons which requireing cap are more effective unbonused than manmatar but im prolly mistaken.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 12:03:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Veliria
Buffer tanking a Hyperion?
Use a Domi.
Seeing as how it works just as well as active tanking it… why not?
And again, the Hype perfectly demonstrates the point in the OP: a ship that gets a repping bonus, which, if you spend every last low slot, all rig slots, and (arguably) even a couple of valuable midslots on making the most of that bonus… ends up tanking about as well as if you had ignored the bonus altogether.
———
“If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡…
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.”
— Karath Piki |
Vivian Azure
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 12:15:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Vivian Azure on 20/10/2009 12:17:15
The problem with active tanking is...
2x Large Armor Repairer II + 2x Large Auxiliary Nano Pump I = 2080 raw armor repaired every 11.25 seconds
2x 1600mm Rolled Tungsten + 2x Large Trimark Armor Pump I = 16564 raw HP
Now to get both setups up par in hitpoints only, you need to run your active setup for 90 seconds. So in any fight, where your ship blows up in under 90 seconds, you would've been better off with a passive one. This is for unbonussed ships like a Megathron tho.
In a further step, we look at the fittings possible with both setups.
The active tanked Megathron can only fit Electrons and deals less DPS and has less range then a passive tanked one with Neutrons. 100 DPS and 5km effective range with CN AntiMatter to be more specific.
The active tanked Megathron can only tank half the DPS of the passive Megathron with it's reppers, so let's run these numbers down.
active Mega:
7x Electron II, Heavy Dim NOS
100MN MWD II, Heavy CapBooster II, Faint Disruptor, Fleeting Web
2x LAR II, DCU II, 2x EANM II, 2x MagStab II
2x Aux Nano Pump I, 1x Algid Hybrid I
5x Ogre II
3% CPU Imp (KMB-50)
= 61500 EHP + 570 repped/sec, 1012 DPS
passive Mega:
7x Neutron II, Large Remote Rep I (offline)
100MN MWD II, Med CapBooster II, Warp Disruptor II, Fleeting Web
2x 1600mm RT, DCU II, 2x EANM II, 2x MagStab II
3x Trimark I
5x Ogre II
3% CPU Imp (KMB-50)
= 124000 EHP, 1112 DPS
TTL:
active Mega = 114 seconds
passive Mega = 122 seconds
Passive Mega wins this theoretical slugfest by 8 seconds.
---
This is all very theoretical, but what we see on TQ shows, that people fly passive-setups 90% of the time in PvP.
Everyone tries to compare setups in perfect 1vs1 situations and even there, the passive Mega would've lost in my example above. TQ isn't a laboratory however and you need to fit for all eventualities and active reps just don't cut it there, especially not when considering remote-repping.
|
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 12:37:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Vivian Azure
Edited by: Vivian Azure on 20/10/2009 12:17:15The problem with active tanking is..
And that's why things need changing, but instead of "giving everyone moar!" because more is better I think that "making EHP fits less good" is the way to go, I know a lot of people can't get their heads around "less is more" but it would solve so many other balancing issues shipwise in the process.
-----------
ADM-I |
Vivian Azure
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 12:53:00 -
[29]
Simpliest solution would be to remove Trimarks and Core Field Extenders tbh.
|
To mare
Amarr
Advanced Technology
|
Posted - 2009.10.20 13:10:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Vivian Azure
Simpliest solution would be to remove Trimarks and Core Field Extenders tbh.
or make them stack to each others like speed mods
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |