EVE Search - [PROPOSAL] Active Tank Bonus Buff

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[PROPOSAL] Active Tank Bonus Buff

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Yaay UK Corp	Posted - 2010.03.01 22:49:00 - [91] HP and self Rep need to be looked at, but It needs to be combined with a look at RR fits on anything other than triage carriers and Logis. It's a more complex problem than the OP makes it. DD changes Docking PVP games
Ilik Tanikalot	Posted - 2010.03.02 12:58:00 - [92]
Karonys Balderfrey Enterprises The Phoenix. Consortium	Posted - 2010.03.02 13:38:00 - [93] This plus a bonus to the CPU usage of armor repair modules on ships that are meant to be active tanked would be great. Currently these ships are inferior to buffer tanked ships for everything except mission running.
Alitaran	Posted - 2010.03.04 14:50:00 - [94] Edited by: Alitaran on 04/03/2010 14:49:49 Great idea, give armor tankers some needed love.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.04 14:58:00 - [95] Originally by: Alitaran Edited by: Alitaran on 04/03/2010 14:49:49 Great idea, give armor tankers some needed love. He? Why?
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.03.04 15:22:00 - [96] Originally by: Yaay HP and self Rep need to be looked at, but It needs to be combined with a look at RR fits on anything other than triage carriers and Logis. It's a more complex problem than the OP makes it. I know it is, but this is a good start. Personally I have no real gripe with plated and trimarked BS operating as an RR blob. In larger scale fights you need that EHP otherwise you'll likely instapop. I do agree that the whole dynamic needs looking into, personally I'd like to see the fitting requirements raised on plates/extenders and lowered on reps or at least equalised. I'd rather see plated/extended BS limited to lower-mid tier guns with active repped boats being able to mount higher tier guns, but that's for another topic (and likely will never happen as it will screw over a LOT of cruiser/BC pilots). Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Alitaran Edited by: Alitaran on 04/03/2010 14:49:49 Great idea, give armor tankers some needed love. He? Why? Your an moran. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.04 15:59:00 - [97] Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Yaay HP and self Rep need to be looked at, but It needs to be combined with a look at RR fits on anything other than triage carriers and Logis. It's a more complex problem than the OP makes it. I know it is, but this is a good start. Personally I have no real gripe with plated and trimarked BS operating as an RR blob. In larger scale fights you need that EHP otherwise you'll likely instapop. I do agree that the whole dynamic needs looking into, personally I'd like to see the fitting requirements raised on plates/extenders and lowered on reps or at least equalised. I'd rather see plated/extended BS limited to lower-mid tier guns with active repped boats being able to mount higher tier guns, but that's for another topic (and likely will never happen as it will screw over a LOT of cruiser/BC pilots). Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Alitaran Edited by: Alitaran on 04/03/2010 14:49:49 Great idea, give armor tankers some needed love. He? Why? Your an moran. Why? Because I asked why he thinks armor tanks are weaker than shield tanks? This clearly shows how moran you are, I havent even talked to you. Your idea to boost bonuses is stupid ,instead of boosting the reppers/shield boosters this would only make some active bonused ships worthy to use these.
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.03.04 16:22:00 - [98] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Originally by: Yaay HP and self Rep need to be looked at, but It needs to be combined with a look at RR fits on anything other than triage carriers and Logis. It's a more complex problem than the OP makes it. I know it is, but this is a good start. Personally I have no real gripe with plated and trimarked BS operating as an RR blob. In larger scale fights you need that EHP otherwise you'll likely instapop. I do agree that the whole dynamic needs looking into, personally I'd like to see the fitting requirements raised on plates/extenders and lowered on reps or at least equalised. I'd rather see plated/extended BS limited to lower-mid tier guns with active repped boats being able to mount higher tier guns, but that's for another topic (and likely will never happen as it will screw over a LOT of cruiser/BC pilots). Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Alitaran Edited by: Alitaran on 04/03/2010 14:49:49 Great idea, give armor tankers some needed love. He? Why? Your an moran. Why? Because I asked why he thinks armor tanks are weaker than shield tanks? This clearly shows how moran you are, I havent even talked to you. Your idea to boost bonuses is stupid ,instead of boosting the reppers/shield boosters this would only make some active bonused ships worthy to use these. Protip: Read the OP. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Grut The Protei	Posted - 2010.03.04 19:18:00 - [99] Theres always going to be a tipping point between active and buffer as numbers increase, unless you nerf the crap out of buffer. If you buff active tanking so that tipping point is more then well 2 you endup with broken 1v1/2v2 mechanics and ships that are still useless past the tipping point in fleets, not to mention the hulls which are meant to active tank don't have the best fitting setups for large fights (mainly blasters/acs). Wouldn't it be better to tweak the bonus to +10% to repair mod and +10% received rr? that way the ships in question stay usefull past the tipping point. The disadvantage over a resist bonus is 1/3 less primary buffer and the requirement of rr/active tank to use the bonus. Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know... Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought
Tulisin Dragonflame	Posted - 2010.03.04 19:28:00 - [100] Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 04/03/2010 19:28:34 I'm on board for the principle of the thing, although just going from 7.5 % to 10 % may not be the right fix. I'd like to see a bonus like -10 % to capacitor requirement and cycle time for repairers per level. This would make them rep twice the DPS at the same amount of cap and also give them a more even repair rate (as opposed to long cycle times). It'd also mean one pulse of a repper wouldn't take as much cap.

Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.04 19:35:00 - [101] Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 04/03/2010 19:28:34 I'm on board for the principle of the thing, although just going from 7.5 % to 10 % may not be the right fix. I'd like to see a bonus like -10 % to capacitor requirement and cycle time for repairers per level. This would make them rep twice the DPS at the same amount of cap and also give them a more even repair rate (as opposed to long cycle times). It'd also mean one pulse of a repper wouldn't take as much cap. Or a better one make them unkillable until they fit up a repper. Why not? It wouldnt be more unbalanced than your current proposal. So whats the problem with boosting reppers/boosters instead of some ships? Then even without bonus there would be reasons to fit active tanks up,and bonused ships would still be 7.5%/lvl better at it.
Tulisin Dragonflame	Posted - 2010.03.04 19:47:00 - [102] Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 04/03/2010 19:28:34 I'm on board for the principle of the thing, although just going from 7.5 % to 10 % may not be the right fix. I'd like to see a bonus like -10 % to capacitor requirement and cycle time for repairers per level. This would make them rep twice the DPS at the same amount of cap and also give them a more even repair rate (as opposed to long cycle times). It'd also mean one pulse of a repper wouldn't take as much cap. Or a better one make them unkillable until they fit up a repper. Why not? It wouldnt be more unbalanced than your current proposal. So whats the problem with boosting reppers/boosters instead of some ships? Then even without bonus there would be reasons to fit active tanks up,and bonused ships would still be 7.5%/lvl better at it. Because there's nothing wrong with reps as a module. They function well on their own in a lot of situations. The problem is simply with ships that are "forced" (via bonuses) to fit them in situations where they don't work well. The solution is to make them work well for those ships, even in situations where repairers don't usually work well, not to boost repairers for everyone at a risk of overpowering them in situations where they're already good.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.04 19:56:00 - [103] Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Originally by: Naomi Knight Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 04/03/2010 19:28:34 I'm on board for the principle of the thing, although just going from 7.5 % to 10 % may not be the right fix. I'd like to see a bonus like -10 % to capacitor requirement and cycle time for repairers per level. This would make them rep twice the DPS at the same amount of cap and also give them a more even repair rate (as opposed to long cycle times). It'd also mean one pulse of a repper wouldn't take as much cap. Or a better one make them unkillable until they fit up a repper. Why not? It wouldnt be more unbalanced than your current proposal. So whats the problem with boosting reppers/boosters instead of some ships? Then even without bonus there would be reasons to fit active tanks up,and bonused ships would still be 7.5%/lvl better at it. Because there's nothing wrong with reps as a module. They function well on their own in a lot of situations. The problem is simply with ships that are "forced" (via bonuses) to fit them in situations where they don't work well. The solution is to make them work well for those ships, even in situations where repairers don't usually work well, not to boost repairers for everyone at a risk of overpowering them in situations where they're already good. So wouldnt boosting bonus to 10%/lvl make those ships op in situations where they're already good? Because for those self repair bonused ships both changes would be the same , but for not bonused ships in your version self repairing would still be unwanted.
MADDOGzors Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.03.04 21:46:00 - [104] If you really want active tanking to be viable the answer is simple. You boost the rep amount done by modules. If you think 10% more boost is enough you're crazy. Think more around 25% more boost. For example a T2 XL SB boosts 600 hp. A 25% boost would then make it rep 750 hp. This cannot be only for ships that have in your opinon, active bonuses. For example the Rokh has a resist bonus but is a great active tank. And I feel sorry for hype pilots because the slot layout and PG does need tweaked. Whatever the change for active tanking, it needs to be across the board and not to select ships.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2010.03.05 03:09:00 - [105] Originally by: MADDOGzors If you really want active tanking to be viable the answer is simple. You boost the rep amount done by modules. If you think 10% more boost is enough you're crazy. Think more around 25% more boost. For example a T2 XL SB boosts 600 hp. A 25% boost would then make it rep 750 hp. This cannot be only for ships that have in your opinon, active bonuses. For example the Rokh has a resist bonus but is a great active tank. And I feel sorry for hype pilots because the slot layout and PG does need tweaked. Whatever the change for active tanking, it needs to be across the board and not to select ships. No no and damned well NO! I wish all you mob who suggest boosting/fixing active tanking modules in preference to boosting the active tanking bonus would get it through your thick damned skulls that the issue here is not the mobule but the tanking bonus balannce. Currently the 5%/lvl resist bonus is superior in almost every way to the 7.5%/lvl rep bonus, there is a margin a very very small margin that a repair bonus is superior in raw dps tank. This btw is the case even if the resist bonused ship goes active tank also. If you boost the active modules, it won't change a thing, the resist bonused ships will still be superior because they can fit the same module. Hence why the OP asks for a repair bonus increase, then at least the repair bonus will have a clear superiority in smaller engagements, and not by a huge amount and certainly not a game breaking amount. But a clear enough difference to make it worth using a vulnerable tank such as an active bonus. Were not here to fix active tanking modules, were here to fix active tanking ships.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.05 07:17:00 - [106] Originally by: Nian Banks Originally by: MADDOGzors If you really want active tanking to be viable the answer is simple. You boost the rep amount done by modules. If you think 10% more boost is enough you're crazy. Think more around 25% more boost. For example a T2 XL SB boosts 600 hp. A 25% boost would then make it rep 750 hp. This cannot be only for ships that have in your opinon, active bonuses. For example the Rokh has a resist bonus but is a great active tank. And I feel sorry for hype pilots because the slot layout and PG does need tweaked. Whatever the change for active tanking, it needs to be across the board and not to select ships. No no and damned well NO! I wish all you mob who suggest boosting/fixing active tanking modules in preference to boosting the active tanking bonus would get it through your thick damned skulls that the issue here is not the mobule but the tanking bonus balannce. Currently the 5%/lvl resist bonus is superior in almost every way to the 7.5%/lvl rep bonus, there is a margin a very very small margin that a repair bonus is superior in raw dps tank. This btw is the case even if the resist bonused ship goes active tank also. If you boost the active modules, it won't change a thing, the resist bonused ships will still be superior because they can fit the same module. Hence why the OP asks for a repair bonus increase, then at least the repair bonus will have a clear superiority in smaller engagements, and not by a huge amount and certainly not a game breaking amount. But a clear enough difference to make it worth using a vulnerable tank such as an active bonus. Were not here to fix active tanking modules, were here to fix active tanking ships. So you are saying that these active tank bonused ships are fine atm,even when fitted with such modules. Then why do you want to boost them? Just because they have different bonus than other ships? It makes no sense. Bonuses are different ship to ship that doesnt justify that bonuses have to equal to eachother, only ships performane matters,and as you said these ships work fine as they are now. If they are fine there is no need to boost them! "Were not here to fix active tanking modules, were here to fix active tanking ships." "then at least the repair bonus will have a clear superiority in smaller engagements" so you just want to make you ships the only ships reasonable for smaller engagements? awesome for balance :( What I see is that you want your active tanked minmatar ships even better,but these are fine and such a change would make them op. Thou I agree that some active tank bonused gallente ships are weak and should be boosted ,but then there is the ship hull is the problem not the bonus itself,better slot layouts and fittings could fix them easily.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2010.03.05 08:51:00 - [107] Edited by: Nian Banks on 05/03/2010 08:55:05 Originally by: Naomi Knight ~the "I don't read peoples reply or understand common logic" reply~ Ahh... You still don't understand? I cry for your parents... Hope they didn't putmuch into your education. I will try one more time to explain the situation to you. Although I doubt you will read it... Currently with the way resists, incoming dps, tanked dps, time and cap use. If an active tank bonused ship and a resist bonused ship both fitted an active tank, the active bonused ship would only be superior by about 2% in tank, however as soon as both ships have to disable their rep due to cap, the resist bonused ship wins out. The superiority of the active tank bonused ship is also only within a very small window of incoming dps. Note: If a small gang V's small gang situation had both gangs with a logistics cruiser, the resist bonus ship would be vastly superior than an active tank bonused ship. Negating even the minor superiority of active tank bonused ships in small engagements. Once the incoming dps is sufficient enough, I.e medium sized engagements and up, the resist bonused ship is superior by a great deal in all situations because an active tank ceases to be viable, RR, EHP and for small ships speed, are the only accepted tank for those larger engagements. Because the resist bonus is so far and away superior in the vast majority of pvp (not that I gripe about balance in tanks for large engagements), it is only fitting that active tank bonused ships were equally superior in small engagements as resist bonused ships are in large engagements. P.s If you don't understand this then sod off, your a waste of forum bandwidth.
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere Sev3rance	Posted - 2010.03.05 10:42:00 - [108] Originally by: MADDOGzors If you really want active tanking to be viable the answer is simple. You boost the rep amount done by modules. If you think 10% more boost is enough you're crazy. Think more around 25% more boost. For example a T2 XL SB boosts 600 hp. A 25% boost would then make it rep 750 hp. This cannot be only for ships that have in your opinon, active bonuses. For example the Rokh has a resist bonus but is a great active tank. And I feel sorry for hype pilots because the slot layout and PG does need tweaked. Whatever the change for active tanking, it needs to be across the board and not to select ships. I wondered when you'd tip up in this thread spilling your man juice and love for the Rokh everywhere... I'm not just refering to the Hype but ALL ships with this bonus. I'll refer you to Nian Banks' post, he put it quite well... Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Dogfighter	Posted - 2010.03.05 10:51:00 - [109] /signed
Minkert 101st Covert Ops C. O. R. E.	Posted - 2010.03.05 17:33:00 - [110] √√

MADDOGzors Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.03.05 19:58:00 - [111] In small gangs the maelstrom is pretty damn close to the rokh in tank. The maelstrom has the cap advantage making it better if it has to tank a long time. So say you get your 10% boost per level. That's only 12.5% more boost with bs 5. That's less than popping a blue pill. If your arguement is to make active tanking viable in small-mid size gangs then you better ask for a bigger buff. Even with HG crystals right now my active rokh still melts in larger fights as it should. So imagine if you get a buff to your ships that equals having HG crystals, it still won't be enough. I'd be very surprised if ccp buffed active tanking in any way. But good luck.
kivulinduli	Posted - 2010.03.07 13:35:00 - [112] /signed <--- has Minmatar BS, Cruiser, Frigate & Battlecruiser V. Give active tank ships some love.
Clumsy Pilot	Posted - 2010.03.07 15:00:00 - [113]
Learol	Posted - 2010.03.07 15:52:00 - [114] Edited by: Learol on 07/03/2010 15:52:30 My active tanks work for better than any of my buffer fits, they only do for 40 seconds, mind you :) still, supported
Spugg Galdon	Posted - 2010.03.08 18:05:00 - [115] Originally by: Grut Theres always going to be a tipping point between active and buffer as numbers increase, unless you nerf the crap out of buffer. If you buff active tanking so that tipping point is more then well 2 you endup with broken 1v1/2v2 mechanics and ships that are still useless past the tipping point in fleets, not to mention the hulls which are meant to active tank don't have the best fitting setups for large fights (mainly blasters/acs). Wouldn't it be better to tweak the bonus to +10% to repair mod and +10% received rr? that way the ships in question stay usefull past the tipping point. The disadvantage over a resist bonus is 1/3 less primary buffer and the requirement of rr/active tank to use the bonus. That part of your post I've bolded is a very good idea. Gives the ship two roles. Solo/small gang self rep BS and a fleet BS used with RR. The numbers need running but I think his is something to concentrate on.
Ephemeron Retribution Corp. Initiative Associates	Posted - 2010.03.08 18:51:00 - [116] Edited by: Ephemeron on 08/03/2010 18:51:30 Quote: Wouldn't it be better to tweak the bonus to +10% to repair mod and +10% received rr? Why not simply engage the memory block in your brain and realize that this hasn't been the problem in the past. It is an emergent problem. Since we can remember the states of the game where it was not a problem and when it became a problem, we can trace back the changes and isolate the ones mostly likely to be responsible for this passive/active disparity. This never ending cycle of tanking boosts is starting to look disturbing. But then again, you'd need a functioning memory to see the pattern.
SupaKudoRio	Posted - 2010.03.08 19:57:00 - [117] I love flying active tanked ships. I'll support, but the problem isn't in the ship bonuses. IMHO, five times repair amount and capacitor use on the modules themselves would go much further. _____ 10/10: Where is your God now?
Dianna Soreil Monolithic. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2010.03.08 21:17:00 - [118] great, now i will finally be able to collect the insurance on that cyclone that's gathering dust in my hangars
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.08 22:11:00 - [119] Quote: Wouldn't it be better to tweak the bonus to +10% to repair mod and +10% received rr? that way the ships in question stay usefull past the tipping point. The disadvantage over a resist bonus is 1/3 less primary buffer and the requirement of rr/active tank to use the bonus. QFT, i like that.
Swguru Dead Pilots Society	Posted - 2010.03.08 23:13:00 - [120]



Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: 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.