| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Arthur Black
SoE Roughriders
Electus Matari
   |
Posted - 2010.02.14 19:02:00 -
[61]
Yes please.
This has kept me up some nights and I've tried to raise the subject earlier in "Features and Ideas":
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1192600
My suggestion called for a boost to 10-12% pr. level. In return, perhaps a nerf to drone bandwidth. Perhaps down to 75 or even 50. Although that suggestion also called for a PG upgrade on the Hyperion. At least up to 1000 or even better 1200 for an All V character. As mentioned in the suggestion, the upper values there (12%, 1200 PG) are probably wishful thinking, but a buff to somewhere between 10-12% and 1000-1200 PG isn't going to make these ships overpowered, just useful and welcome in small- to medium sized gangs.
And I would still fly my Megathron for buffer/RR gangs. As has been pointed out, this is not about trying to fit active tanked ships into those gangs.
The PvE aspect is a valid concern. More so for the Maelstrom than the Hyperion as it can fit damage modules in the lows while mounting one hell of a tank in the mids. That's fine, as in PvP, it would have to sacrifice tank for a disruptor for instance. For PvE, it would be good, but probably still not as good as a Raven. And as I've said before, it's not like BS V is handed out to all of New Eden. It takes time to train. |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 21:53:00 -
[62]
I can get behind an active tank boost. :)
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Andreus LeHane
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2010.02.14 21:56:00 -
[63]
Two things to consider:
1. The non-viability of active tanks is related more to the fact that buffer tanks don't need to rely on capacitor to work, whereas a couple of Curses can tear a Hyperion's capacitor apart in a few cycles. If you want to restore active tanking's viability, something about capacitor management needs to change. Neuts need to get weaker, or boosters/reppers need to use less capacitor, or ships that are intended to be actively tanked need to get a bonus to booster/repper cap usage.
2.
 Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Cons:
Possible slight buff to PVE boats.
Why is this a con?
-----
|
Zhi Ying
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 08:32:00 -
[64]
Supported!
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 09:37:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Andreus LeHane
Two things to consider:
1. The non-viability of active tanks is related more to the fact that buffer tanks don't need to rely on capacitor to work, whereas a couple of Curses can tear a Hyperion's capacitor apart in a few cycles. If you want to restore active tanking's viability, something about capacitor management needs to change. Neuts need to get weaker, or boosters/reppers need to use less capacitor, or ships that are intended to be actively tanked need to get a bonus to booster/repper cap usage.
I disagree. Active tanks should be very strong but highly capacitor dependent. This should be where their vulnerabilty lies. You get heavily neuted... you're buggered. I think even 10% is a wishful boost. 9% is probably a good figure to request.
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 10:28:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Nian Banks on 16/02/2010 10:35:17
Originally by: Spugg Galdon
Originally by: Andreus LeHane
Two things to consider:
1. The non-viability of active tanks is related more to the fact that buffer tanks don't need to rely on capacitor to work, whereas a couple of Curses can tear a Hyperion's capacitor apart in a few cycles. If you want to restore active tanking's viability, something about capacitor management needs to change. Neuts need to get weaker, or boosters/reppers need to use less capacitor, or ships that are intended to be actively tanked need to get a bonus to booster/repper cap usage.
I disagree. Active tanks should be very strong but highly capacitor dependent. This should be where their vulnerabilty lies. You get heavily neuted... you're buggered. I think even 10% is a wishful boost. 9% is probably a good figure to request.
I believe your opinion in regards to the suggested 10%/lvl is misguided.
If you compair the Cyclone with an active tank vs an EHP tank, you would realize that asking for the bonus to become 10% is the bare minimum it needs.
If you don't understand then perhaps you should ask Liang.
Liang had a good understanding of tanking, active/passive/EHP
|
Project CareBears
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 10:30:00 -
[67]
supported!
|
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 11:20:00 -
[68]
Quote:
Possible slight buff to PVE boats.
because we just cannot let gallente and minmatar have any ship that comes close in pve effectiveness of a raven, can we?
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes.StevieSG |
Damien Anders
The Red Circle Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 14:09:00 -
[69]
Yes please!
"This wise man observed that wealth is a tool of freedom. But the pursuit of wealth is the way to slavery." |
Wu Jiaqiu
Res Ipsa Loquitor
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 15:58:00 -
[70]
+1 from me
|
|
|
Red Boss
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 16:11:00 -
[71]
Yes, please. The active tank buff is probably the first step of things that should be fixed with gallente. Next up, please fix blasters.
|
Pickman620
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 16:49:00 -
[72]
Too true....Active tanks blow in PVP.
|
Liol Wongsta
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2010.02.16 17:33:00 -
[73]
Has to be two fold however, must stacking penalize the buffer rigs.
|
Fistme
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 20:37:00 -
[74]
I think that two sets of armor implants and two sets of shield implants would also be a step in the right direction. One set for hp, one set for rep amount.
The other issue with active tanks especially on the Gallente end is the lack of low slots to take advantage of the rep bonus coupled with dmg mods. Brutix and to a lesser degree the Astarte need to have their slot layouts and pg amounts reworked. I think both these ships should get either another highslot + grid for gang mod or another low slot so they can actually take advantage of the slot heavy active tank they are bonused for...
The other solution could be to decrease the pg needed to fit these active reppers. This would go along way in allowing active armor tankers to not completely gimp their load out if they fit the 2 reps these ships are so clearly designed to fit.
|
Ephemeron
Retribution Corp.
Initiative Associates
|
Posted - 2010.02.18 23:56:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 19/02/2010 00:00:47
Ok, few people here recognize my way of reasoning, even tho it is logically sound and no one presented counter arguments.
Okay, so you boost the active tank bonus on a few ships that have it. Those ships may get a slight advantage that may, just may, be able to make them competitive against passive/buffer tanks. But what about all the other ships? for them active tanking will still be the weaker option.
I hope CCP, unlike casual players, put more serious thought into analysis of the situation. They could do some serious number crunching. First, collect a few dozen samples from killboards, filter out all PvE and "noob" fits, categorize samples by ship type, split shield tankers from armor tankers.
Then calculate total effective HP for all ships. In case of active tanks, calculate effective HP based on battle duration for several intervals: 1,2,3..10 minutes
For each of the 10 battle duration categories, calculate raw DPS necessary to kill the ship.
Make a bar graph of the "breaking point dps" for each battle duration comparing passive/buffer tank and active tank.
Calculate probabilities of active tank working for each of the 10 battle durations, assuming that every active tank ship fits cap injector, but has limited supply of charges.
Calculate probabilities of energy neutralizer to be used by enemy based on the dps. Such as: for every 500 dps, an average of 1 medium energy neutralizer is used.
Calculate adjusted effective HP of active tank ships under conditions of limited cap and average use of energy neutralizers for each of 10 battle duration categories. Compare findings with previous data.
Calculate average number of ships required to produce breaking point dps for each battle duration.
Calculate statistical distribution of ships in engagement, group different intervals of distribution curve and calculate success or failure of active and passive/buffer tanks for each 10 battle duration categories.
Calculate statistical distribution of battle durations. Use it to create weights for each of the 10 battle duration categories and most probable effective tanking method between active and passive/buffer
Repeat same calculation for every ship type.
Repeat calculations separately for armor and shield tanked ships.
Repeat calculations with modified starting conditions - such as increased/decrease tanks from sample data, increased/decreased energy neutralizer usage..
Keep updating sample data.
You get the idea.
There's literally months of work for serious game designer. Work that is necessary to make educated decisions on important game balance decisions. The arguments people use on this forum are little more than hints at the truth and the signal to noise ratio is low.
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 02:37:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Nian Banks on 19/02/2010 02:38:34
Originally by: Ephemeron
Edited by: Ephemeron on 19/02/2010 00:00:47
Ok, few people here recognize my way of reasoning, even tho it is logically sound and no one presented counter arguments.
Okay, so you boost the active tank bonus on a few ships that have it. Those ships may get a slight advantage that may, just may, be able to make them competitive against passive/buffer tanks. But what about all the other ships? for them active tanking will still be the weaker option.
I hope CCP, unlike casual players, put more serious thought into analysis of the situation. They could do some serious number crunching. First, collect a few dozen samples from killboards, filter out all PvE and "noob" fits, categorize samples by ship type, split shield tankers from armor tankers.
Then calculate total effective HP for all ships. In case of active tanks, calculate effective HP based on battle duration for several intervals: 1,2,3..10 minutes
For each of the 10 battle duration categories, calculate raw DPS necessary to kill the ship.
Make a bar graph of the "breaking point dps" for each battle duration comparing passive/buffer tank and active tank.
Calculate probabilities of active tank working for each of the 10 battle durations, assuming that every active tank ship fits cap injector, but has limited supply of charges.
Calculate probabilities of energy neutralizer to be used by enemy based on the dps. Such as: for every 500 dps, an average of 1 medium energy neutralizer is used.
Calculate adjusted effective HP of active tank ships under conditions of limited cap and average use of energy neutralizers for each of 10 battle duration categories. Compare findings with previous data.
Calculate average number of ships required to produce breaking point dps for each battle duration.
Calculate statistical distribution of ships in engagement, group different intervals of distribution curve and calculate success or failure of active and passive/buffer tanks for each 10 battle duration categories.
Calculate statistical distribution of battle durations. Use it to create weights for each of the 10 battle duration categories and most probable effective tanking method between active and passive/buffer
Repeat same calculation for every ship type.
Repeat calculations separately for armor and shield tanked ships.
Repeat calculations with modified starting conditions - such as increased/decrease tanks from sample data, increased/decreased energy neutralizer usage..
Keep updating sample data.
You get the idea.
There's literally months of work for serious game designer. Work that is necessary to make educated decisions on important game balance decisions. The arguments people use on this forum are little more than hints at the truth and the signal to noise ratio is low.
Ahh guess what, after typing all that crap, you failed miserably.
Even if the active tanking modules get a buff, you will still have the issue that resist bonuses are superior to repair bonuses.
Basically although it would fix active tanking, the repair bonused ships would be still subpar and need a boost.
Sure enough, go right ahead and suggest a boost to the whole active tanking system but don't hinder this request just because your a nub.
Resist bonused ships can fit active tanking modules you know, so you still need to give the repair bonused ships a clear boon in that field.
10%/lvl is a reasonable boon.
|
Zommari Jiruga
Security Status Negative
Cookie Nation
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 12:49:00 -
[77]
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2010.02.19 13:03:00 -
[78]
not supported
active tank boost fine active tank bonus boost isnt
|
Loki Farseer
F9X
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 09:12:00 -
[79]
Heh Sure give them a slight Repair Amount buff..
A couple things caused the current issues with Active Tanks though that just giving those ships a rep buff won't solve it...
CCP Borked the All You Can Eat Nos... many an active tank was fueled by this in the day. This in and of itself wouldn't have been a killer for active tanks. CCP then added Rigs. I love rigs... ALOT, but TBH the buffer rigs are just too damn effective. Now with Heat and Boosters and Implants there is a hint of hope for the active tank since Heat a tank for a bit, pop a Blue or Exile and rock a HG Crystal set and life can get pretty damn fun again for an active tank... till you run into a couple neuts...
The bigger problem and why I get nervous with active tanks is it's damn hard to keep it in Cap... In EVE Cap is life, without it you are toast (yes Projectiles dun need it and Buffer tanks don't either) but even with projectiles and buffer tanks I shut off your Prop Mod, Web, Point etc and you are a sitting duck.
The KISS principle applies... the simplest and easiest way to PVP currently is to Buffer Tank it and have some RR handy.
Wall of text aside... make the change and add more % to the Active Tanking Ships... but it's the cap that's the killer on them. Treating a symptom not the disease 
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 13:53:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 20/02/2010 13:55:35
I think boosting armor/shield rep amount won't change anything...cyclone (600dps/600dps tank pvp-fit anyone?), myrmidon(triple rep 1k dps tank) and maelstrom (omg...got a friend that tanks 2k dps with it) are awesome tankers for solo/small engagements already. Rep amounts incl. implants+boosters+heat w/o fleet booster.
The problem lies within buffertanking, especially rigs (no stacking penalties, etc.).
My suggestion is more about balancing rigs (e.g. introduce omni resist rigs, stacking penalize buffer amount rigs. Rigs are designed to be less effective as t2 modules; But regenerative membrane for armor tanks has +15% as well.
Sorry, buffing rep/boost amount isn't the solution! Let's work on the rigs!
edit: I fly buffer tanked ships (Abaddon/Geddon, Harbinger, Absolution) as well as active tanked ships (myrmidon+cyclone)
------
Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
|
|
Cearain
ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.02.20 14:12:00 -
[81]
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 04:19:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Nian Banks on 21/02/2010 04:22:32
Originally by: Slade Hoo
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 20/02/2010 13:55:35
I think boosting armor/shield rep amount won't change anything...cyclone (600dps/600dps tank pvp-fit anyone?), myrmidon(triple rep 1k dps tank) and maelstrom (omg...got a friend that tanks 2k dps with it) are awesome tankers for solo/small engagements already. Rep amounts incl. implants+boosters+heat w/o fleet booster.
The problem lies within buffertanking, especially rigs (no stacking penalties, etc.).
My suggestion is more about balancing rigs (e.g. introduce omni resist rigs, stacking penalize buffer amount rigs. Rigs are designed to be less effective as t2 modules; But regenerative membrane for armor tanks has +15% as well.
Sorry, buffing rep/boost amount isn't the solution! Let's work on the rigs!
edit: I fly buffer tanked ships (Abaddon/Geddon, Harbinger, Absolution) as well as active tanked ships (myrmidon+cyclone)
There are two old men, who to get to work by catching the first tram in the mornings and then walking a mile down an old cobbled path.
Both of the men work in the same factory and earn the same wage but one of the old men has no wife or family to suport and so wears nice new shoes, the other has a wife and three children and so can't afford new shoes so therefore his shoes are a bit worn out.
Every day they both head off to work the same time because they must catch the first tram of the day. After the tram however the man with the nice shoes always makes it to work quicker than the one without and so has become the favourite of the boss. One day the old married man complained to his wife about how his feet hurt from the cobbled stone and that he will not get a promotion because the other man beats him to work every day.
The mans wife then thinks to herself that if she complained to the council and has the path repaired then her husband wouldn't have as sore a feet
and then will get to work like the man with nice shoes.
After a bit of campaigning, the council bitumen sealed the path and it was nice and easy to walk on. The poor man was pleased and walked down the path quickly.
Sadly however the man with the nice shoes, without having to walk carefully, instead jogged to work because the path was so very easy on the feet.
The man with old shoes ofcourse couldn't jog and was just a behind the man with the new shoes as he was before.
The moral of the story is that sometimes, fixing something to make it better for one, will often make it better for all and give you no advantage at all.
|
crimson fire
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 16:22:00 -
[83]
supported
|
343guilty1
Strategic Insanity
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 20:32:00 -
[84]
plus 10% is way easier to calc than 7.5% like, who the hell can add that after 3-4 skill levels? -.-
|
Deviana Sevidon
Panta-Rhei
Butterfly Effect Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 13:43:00 -
[85]
Supported, active tanks could indeed use some love.
Personally I would reduce the PG requirements of Armour Repairer slighly too.
Quote:
Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
|
0n 1
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 17:01:00 -
[86]
OK
|
Fak Jaelt
Cabal Armaments
|
Posted - 2010.02.27 22:51:00 -
[87]
An active armor bonus should allow a ship to fit a better active tank than a similar ship with a resist bonus. Resist bonuses are great for spider and buffer tanking as well as active tanks. Current %repair-amount bonuses need some re-thinking, especially considering the capacitor dependency handicap that active tanking incurs.
/supported |
Melcairwen Taldir
|
Posted - 2010.02.28 12:42:00 -
[88]
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 16:00:00 -
[89]
Counter-suggestion: make active tanking bonuses apply to RR mods as well. Then active tanking becomes more viable in group PVP.
---
34.4:1 mineral compression |
FU22
Duty.
|
Posted - 2010.03.01 16:10:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Counter-suggestion: make active tanking bonuses apply to RR mods as well. Then active tanking becomes more viable in group PVP.
Imo this won't effect solo/small gang pvp at all but encourage people to fly around in rrbs blobs more.
Supporting larks suggestion
Originally by: Millie Clode
Dear santa, for christmas I would like an endless supply of noobs to march across my screen so I can pretend I'm playing duck hunt
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |