Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer

---

With the prevelance of buffer tanks across all spectrums of PVP and the current uselessness of ships with 'Active Tank' boni I propose the following:

All ships with a 7.5% bonus per level to Repair mod effectiveness have it increased to 10% per level.

Currently, even in solo/small gang situations the 7.5% rep bonus is very nearly equalled in effectiveness by a 5% resist per level bonus in terms of raw damage tanked. The ship with the resist bonus however has the advantage of being able to, should he chooses, buffer tank his vessel and take full advantage of this bonus in RR gangs. The Rep bonus vessel does not.

Pros:

Ships with an Active tank bonus will be utilised more in solo/small gang warfare.

Cons:

Possible slight buff to PVE boats.

---

Originally by: Morel Nova

---

yeah, active tanks really need love!
/signed

---

Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer

---

With the prevelance of buffer tanks across all spectrums of PVP and the current uselessness of ships with 'Active Tank' boni I propose the following:

All ships with a 7.5% bonus per level to Repair mod effectiveness have it increased to 10% per level.

Currently, even in solo/small gang situations the 7.5% rep bonus is very nearly equalled in effectiveness by a 5% resist per level bonus in terms of raw damage tanked. The ship with the resist bonus however has the advantage of being able to, should he chooses, buffer tank his vessel and take full advantage of this bonus in RR gangs. The Rep bonus vessel does not.

Pros:

Ships with an Active tank bonus will be utilised more in solo/small gang warfare.

Cons:

Possible slight buff to PVE boats.

---

Originally by: Dibsi Dei

---

stacking penaltize trimarks/extenders tbh!!!

---

Originally by: Amantus

---

Real men don't need to get into blaster range.

---

Originally by: Morel Nova

---

yeah, active tanks really need love!
/signed

---

Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev

---

Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 08/02/2010 21:13:40
Edited by: Maxsim Goratiev on 08/02/2010 20:57:58
i am sure this will surprise everybody, but i will say no.
Th reason i say no is the simple fact that in my personal opinion the problem is not with the bonus, but with the vessels themselves, there characteristics. For example take britux. A blaster boat MUST have:
A: Guns
B: some sort of speed mod, lpreferably MWD
C: a repper, since it has a repping bonus.

NOw, britux does not have the powergrid to fit these modules. Neither does it have the cap capable of supporting MWd, 7 cap-hungry guns and a repper. Now, in case you whant booster, or dual boosters, that's even more need for power grid. Pretty much the same goes for Hyperion. I hate to see these ships being shieldtancked. These are suppose to be high-dps ships with active tank, and yet they do not have the slots to support a powerfull tank and damage mods, they do not have the powergrid to fit the stuff they need, and they do not have the cap to sustain the mods.

To explore this situation further, i will give you an example.
Abaddon and hyperion are both 8-gunned battleships, with damage and tank bonus, both designed to be the heavy argument on the field for their race, IMO hate bricks for short. So let us explore why abaddon is successful, and hyperion is not.
After you fit 8 highest caliber guns on an abaddon, them being mega pulse laser 2's, 8 of them, you still have 6450 units of power grid left. THose are t2 guns, with maximum advanced weapon upgrades skill.

After you fit 8 t2 neutron blaster on hyperion, you have 2670 units of power grid left. therefore, hyperion has almost THREE TIMES less resources avaliable for utility slots, such as MWD (with hyperion having a grater need for one since it has shorter range) cap boosters and plates. NOt only that, but hyperion has to fir armor repair units, that consume 4 times the power grid of an anmor plate- because if you do not fit it with reppers you are not using the ships bonus, so if anything, hyperion should have MORE power grid left over after you fit guns on it.

Surprisingly, Lasers also consume less cpu then blasters do, leaving abaddon more cpu for e-war and other utility modules. Hyperion natively has much weaker cap then the abaddon does, yet it has to support MWD and the reppers (1 or two, two if you whant a powerfull tank) when abaddon only needs to support lasers, again giving abaddon pilot grater freedom in fitting utilities.
I have compared hyperion to abaddon as abaddon has the closest role to this batlteship, and as we can see it is inferior in every way. I ofcource understand that some ships might not be as good as others, but in this case, it is the ships that need fixing, not the bonus, there parameters and slot layouts. Hyperion at the moment is BROKEN. YEs, it can be used for different applications, but it does not exceed in ANYTHING. It is outtancked, outgunned and outperformed by other battleships in every area. Domi is more flexible, megathron has more dps, Abaddon has greatly better buffertank, maelstorm has better active tank. Apoc and rockh are better snipers. It does not have a niche currently, nor can it compete on even terms with it's opponents.

The only reason i am supporting this, is because it will improve the situation over what we have currently, however i would like the ships to be looked at again, because when an armortancked ship with a bonus is outperformed by the very same ship shieldtanked, without any bonuces, that indicates that something is wrong.

---

Quote:

---

managing your cap makes you a good pilot. mismanagement makes you a bad pilot.

---

Originally by: darius mclever

---

it was relevant before you edited it a second time. not my fault you are so undecided what you actually want to write.

---

Originally by: Jim Raynor

---

EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose.

Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer

---

With the prevelance of buffer tanks across all spectrums of PVP and the current uselessness of ships with 'Active Tank' boni I propose the following:

All ships with a 7.5% bonus per level to Repair mod effectiveness have it increased to 10% per level.

Currently, even in solo/small gang situations the 7.5% rep bonus is very nearly equalled in effectiveness by a 5% resist per level bonus in terms of raw damage tanked. The ship with the resist bonus however has the advantage of being able to, should he chooses, buffer tank his vessel and take full advantage of this bonus in RR gangs. The Rep bonus vessel does not.

Pros:

Ships with an Active tank bonus will be utilised more in solo/small gang warfare.

Cons:

Possible slight buff to PVE boats.

---

Originally by: Fettered Soul

---

Maybe it is so because Gallente ships are not good for active tanking?
Where should Hyperion and Brutix take cap if repair module consume energy, weapon consume energy, MWD and AB (you should have it, otherwise blasters are useless at all) consume energy.
Myrmidon is very good because drones and projectiles do not consume energy :)

---

Originally by: Gaogan

---

Not supported. Your proposal does nothing to address the problem. The repper bonus ships STILL will not be able to use that bonus in buffer/rr settings. They will just be even better pve monsters.

---

Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer

---

Cons:

Possible slight buff to PVE boats.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Possible slight buff to PVE boats.

---

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.

---

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)

---

Quote:

---

Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done

---

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.

---

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

---

Originally by: Alitaran

---

Edited by: Alitaran on 04/03/2010 14:49:49
Great idea, give armor tankers some needed love.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

~the "I don't read peoples reply or understand common logic" reply~

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Wouldn't it be better to tweak the bonus to +10% to repair mod and +10% received rr?

---

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.

---

Originally by: Grut

---

Wouldn't it be better to tweak the bonus to +10% to repair mod and +10% received rr

---

Originally by: Spugg Galdon

---

Edited by: Spugg Galdon on 11/03/2010 10:06:08
Well looking at figures in EFT (which I hate doing cause it isn't really testing ideas) and looking at only third tier BS's in a remote rep role these are results I found (all lvl 5 skills no implants).

Abaddon:
DPS.......920 @ 15(+10)km (tracking 0.04129)
TANK......150k EHP with a defence efficiency of 394 (omni damage) with a single remote armour rep

Hyperion:
DPS.......1085 @ 4.5(+13)km (tracking 0.07036)
TANK......110k EHP with a defence efficiency of 253 (omni damgae) with a single remote armour rep

Rohk:
DPS.......748 @ 6.8(+13)km (tracking 0.05412)
TANK......117k (124k w Invul overloaded) EHP with a defence efficiency of 394 (431 OL'd Invul)with a single remote shield rep

Maelstrom:
DPS.......1021 @ 3.5 (+31)km (tracking 0.05913)
TANK.....95k (100k with invul OL'd) EHP with a defence efficiency of 268 (298 Invul OL'd) with a single remote shield rep



Now if we apply the idea of increasing the ammount of RR the Hyperion and Maelstrom recieve, say 7.5% / BS level the EFT defence efficiency figures would be far closer to their competitors. Does anyone bleive this would create an imbalance or do youthink that it gives the Hyp and Mael a fleet role instead of just relegating them to solo/very small gang work as the local rep bonus becomes useless vs more than 2 or three ships.

So in summary.... what this thread would be requesting is that the active tank bonus be increase to 10% per lvl of armour repairer/ shield boost ammount and 7.5% bonus to RR recieved but only in armour for hype and shield for mael.

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

Hmm compared to rokh vs maelstrom I see no reason to boost the mael,maybe after a blaster boost. So it is clr that maelstroms bonuses are fine-->no need for this active tank bonus boost.

---

Originally by: Spugg Galdon

---

Sorry I'm a moron... didn't have any drones in the Rokh!.... updated above post

---

Originally by: Naomi Knight

---

So giving 7.5%/lvl for incoming remote rep is fine with me ,but not this 10%/lvl the op wants.

Btw it seems that armor tank >> shield ,what a surprise,maybe ccp should do something about that too.
Like increasing the base shield resists a little bit.

---

Originally by: Arthur Black

---

I would not like to see any sort RR bonus on the ships in questions. Take the Hyperion for instance. What would you do be doing in a RR gang with a 8-turret ship? Drop one gun for a RR? You're not going to be accepted in a RR BS gang without a RR module. Hence, bring the Megathron.

If you're talking about dedicated logistics support, well, that could work, but it's already been stated that active tanking ships work best in very small and/or solo engagements. You're not going to have dedicated logistics around for those.

Why make this more convoluted than it needs to be? The original idea presented is simple, easy, and makes sense (and still has my support).

---

Originally by: Spugg Galdon

---

Originally by: Arthur Black

---

I would not like to see any sort RR bonus on the ships in questions. Take the Hyperion for instance. What would you do be doing in a RR gang with a 8-turret ship? Drop one gun for a RR? You're not going to be accepted in a RR BS gang without a RR module. Hence, bring the Megathron.

If you're talking about dedicated logistics support, well, that could work, but it's already been stated that active tanking ships work best in very small and/or solo engagements. You're not going to have dedicated logistics around for those.

Why make this more convoluted than it needs to be? The original idea presented is simple, easy, and makes sense (and still has my support).

---

There is a disparity between the usefulness between the armour/shield resist bonus and the armour repair bonus in that the resist bonus works well with a buffer tank, an active tank and spider tanking. The active tank bonus is also useless when the ship is used in larger than very small scale PvP whereas the resist bonus is useful as either a buffer or a remote rep. Dropping a turret for a remote rep is not that big of a deal when it comes to it, In fact, in some instances we use dual RR fits on our megs's in my corp when in fleet BS fights. 9% per level to armour repair amount and remote repair recieved looks like it would work very well amongst the 3rd tier BS's (haven't checked the BC's yet) with some other tweaking of these ships stats ALL the 3rd teir BS's would bcome very useful, well rounded ships that can be used in small/large fleet engagements or solo.

---

Originally by: Spugg Galdon

---

I'm confused Naiomi. Why have you asked for that in here? I also disagree, Caldari are the kinetic race. But we're going way off topic now

---