Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
913
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:13:00 -
[121] - Quote
This is where the debate become interesting and for the sake of whatever I would like to have a real discussion with people without peter throwing rocks at suzie and jimmy playing kids games. So please even if you disagree do it constructively.
Jerick Ludhowe wrote: As shown numerous times in this thread... At lvl 5 (only way to compare) the difference in active tanks between ships with resistance vs rep bonuses is real however exceedingly small... This thread is about solutions to address the obvious problem which in turn is where most of the debate is moving.
Well, while I do agree with this statement in theory because numbers seem to not lie, in practice it's completely different because in practice there's a lot more than said rep cycling alone with nothing else running, under perfect conditions.
I'll pick the gallente case since I know those much better than amarrian ones. In practice you're MWD'in to your target which means sign bloom of a small moon, and take now a lot more dmg In practice you're also shooting ammo with guns requiring huge chunks of your cap In practice with perfect skills you rep less dmg per second than dmg you take by an inferior sized ship In practice un less specific situation, ship and ultra expensive modules, whenever you get close you have no cap left
Now let's pick two examples, Astarte vs Sleipnir
-In practice I can fit that Sleipnir for an active tank well above 5K/s without combat boosters, links or implants and still 750dps -In practice I can't fit that Astarte for even 1/5th of that active tank, will get more EHP at the beginning but not enough to compensate the huge tank of that sleipnir still able to fit a med Neut drones and dish 750DPS without heat.
Does this means I want Astarte to start tanking 5k active dmg? -answer is why shouldn't it?
But I want it to do it differently. I want to pick my Astarte rather than My Sleipnir because it's my first trained race and offers me the tools to achieve the same job I can do with said Sleipnir. Believe it or not, when you tank a full 10+ Outbreak dudes in Cynabals incapable to break your tank in optimal while I was shooting them back, wait the 30sec cd and jump on the other side leaving them "WTF?" this means something is wrong. I would never, ever, be able to tank 1/5th of that dps with the Astarte, survive and leaving local with a mocking "noobs!"
Quote:Some people believe that the removal of the active bonus for something more "generalized" is the right approach. Some players, such as myself believe that the solution is to specifically increase the bonus to rep amount on specialized ships. It comes down to niche vs generalization which in it's current form unquestionably favors the resistance bonus.
Well this is not really an idea but rather a comment alike "if it's useless at least have the decency to not put it there" Now increase the rep amount on specialised ships I'm all for it but how? -increase base rep bonus to 25%? -reduce 50% fitting requirements and see everyone and his cat with lol triple reps full cargo boost charges again? -increase modules base rep amount?
The heat idea CCP Fozzie announced at some point I don't like it at all. This only means you're still penalised at the beginning by choosing some fancy armor ship to do what? -burn your modules with style? -this is ridiculous because heat/dmg calculations are bad and before you can run 4 or 5 cycles your module is burn=useless=nada=wreck, but was nice and gives the feeling you can do something or that it's just some sort of elite tanking...I don't know.
Once again I would like to confirm my thoughts are essentially about active armor tanking and specially Gallente that somehow combine each and every single possible drawback that might give some dudes the elite feeling when it's actually the awfullest game playing style ever. EvEn playing Dk in wow is more complicated, has richer game play and hundreds times more fun. brb |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
197
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Very good post Lin-Young, I'd like to thank you for adding constructive conversation to this debate.
Now I'm not going to quote specifics of your post due to personal time constraints at this time so I'd just like to address what I feel is the overall message touched upon by you.
You've specifically chosen to compare the Sleipnir to the Astarte which I think is a fantastic benchmark. As you've pointed out the Astarte does not near the capable tank of the sleipnir which is undeniably true. Some of this is due to the significant relative improvement of faction shield boosters compared to armor, part of it is also due to comparing Cruiser Mods to Battleship ones (MAR vs XL SB). Regardless of the specific deviations to discredit this comparison the reality is that the sleipnir will be fitting xl SBs or ASBs, and the Astarte will be fitting MARs so this must also be used in the benchmark between the two ships.
You're point about increasing the baseline efficiency of the Armor reppers themselves I believe is justified however this does not address the issue of resistance vs rep bonus as the relative difference will remain more or less the same if the modules themselves see improvement. So while these changes may have an effect in the Astarte vs Sleipnir debate, it will really have no effect on resistance vs rep amount between armor ships (or even shield). This is why I feel very strongly about increasing rep amount bonuses (including shield). If shield boosters must be nerfed to prevent ships like the sleipnir from gaining tank with a 50% vs 37.5% bonus then so be it, the goal is the address and positively improve the relative differences between resistance/rep amount.
I think the proper solution is to first increase the rep amount bonuses on all ships with said bonuses to a point where niche performance of these ships allows for some justification of the more versatile performance a resistance bonus allows. In the end Gallente weapons, slot layout, and speed + drone bay is far more conducive to solo play anyway, Just as the longer range of amarr laser ships is to fleets.
Also... While the sleipnir is unquestionably better at "spike" tanking small fleets than the astarte, I've never lost an Astarte to a sleipnir 1v1, especially when ASBS are fitted to the sleipnir. Even with guns that use cap I've found that the Astarte makes much better usage of 800's and it's cap in said 1v1 compared to the sleipnir. I've often won duals against sleipnirs with only using 1 or 2 800s compared to the sleipnirs entire hole of charges. Neither ship is capable of breaking the other so it all boils down to efficiency in the end. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
161
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 20:18:00 -
[123] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote: eft warrior much? i dont think i know any one who would risk 3bill of implants in a t1 hull such as a ferox or cyclone not even low grade ones while they MAY use Strong blue pill for 30% boost. ps im nto osure sansha gnome is even available to the masses yet as its either a, not in game yet or b, only drops from vanguards or somethign stupid like that.
I was simply disproving Cearains claim. I know that his example was crap.
The Sansha implant is available from the Amarr Epic Arc, when you chose to side with the Sansha in Chapter 3. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
644
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 20:54:00 -
[124] - Quote
Seranova Farreach wrote: [Cyclone, Crazy Tank] Damage Control II [empty low slots]
10MN MicroWarpdrive II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
[empty high slots]
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
+ Full Crystal Set, + Sansha Gnome Implant + Gnome Shield Operation 6 Implant = 2813 EHP/s with a 41k Buffer
[Ferox, Crazy Tank] Damage Control II [empty low slots]
10MN MicroWarpdrive II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 400 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II
[empty high slots]
Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I Medium Core Defense Operational Solidifier I
+ Full Crystal Set, + Sansha Gnome Implant + Gnome Shield Operation 6 Implant = 2757 EHP/s with a 52k Buffer
2813 - 2757 = 56 52k - 41k = 11k 11k / 56 = 196
The cyclone only has a better tank in situations where the XLASB is active for over 196 seconds. (ie, never)
This is thanks to the resist bonus of the Ferox providing it with a larger buffer on top of providing it with similar boost rates. Hence me saying it's imbalanced.
Edit: And of course, my point is more about the resist ships being able to fulfull more roles than the active ships, not about how well either can active tank.
As demonstrated above - and said in X previous posts - resist bonuses allow the same things active bonuses do and more. It's not about what active ships can do, but about what they can't do
eft warrior much? i dont think i know any one who would risk 3bill of implants in a t1 hull such as a ferox or cyclone not even low grade ones while they MAY use Strong blue pill for 30% boost. ps im nto osure sansha gnome is even available to the masses yet as its either a, not in game yet or b, only drops from vanguards or somethign stupid like that. .
What is the point of posting these fits? The idea of having an asb xl or 2 large plus an invuln and resist rigs is that you can do some small gang pvp in them. ASB won't work in large fleets and you don't want to use them for pve. I don't know why you would ever fit a ship that way.
Usually when I pvp with an asb I actually pulse it so the rigs you chose seem a bit odd.
Pirate sets can be used in pvp in low sec. Yes you will lose them to glitches in the game/lag and smartbombs but they can be used. This is actually one reason why pvp in low sec is more enjoyable than null sec. You have another layer of complexity to your fits.
So yeah the ships with the bonuses to active tanking do active tank better than the ones with just resists.
The fact that you are calculating the effective hit points has more to do with the fact that the ferox has more structure and shield to begin with. The Cyclone has more Armor but the structure and shield hp is what matters much more when you have a dcu2 and shield tank. Your effectively blaming the cyclone's ship bonus for the fact it doesn't have as much shield or structure. These are completely seperate issues.
If they both had the same hp to start you would see an even larger advantage to the cylcone. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Zyella Stormborn
Alpha Strategy In Umbra Mortis
188
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:14:00 -
[125] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:TehCloud wrote:I really think it's a shame that Buffer-Tanking is so much more effective than Active-Tanking, and the boni on Active hardly make a difference on those ships.
Ships like the Hyperion really deserve some love imho.
How much do you think active rep boni have to be improved to be at least kind of competitive, even though not in big fleet fights, I don't think active tanking in big fleets should be an option. A half-ok solution would be to make active tank bonuses also affect received remote reps, but that wouldn't fix the imbalance about resistance to alpha strikes.
Something like this becomes a give and take though. Active bonuses do have the advantage (on armor ships almost moreso, which do not have passive regen) of giving more self-sustainability, and also helping more the longer the fight goes on. Even at current bonus levels, +45% to all incoming reps would be impressive. It does mean not as much good vs alpha strikes however, this is true. But you can't realistically ask for both from one.
They did mention they will be working on armor / shield and active / passive tanking balances (if I remember correctly, I believe the word I saw them use was 'Overhaul', which I personally think it does need).
Good post, and I do think tanking in general needs work, both on small and large scale. And in more areas just than active / resist balance. Speed, sig, mwd vs ab, armor = no resist, active vs passive, etc., The whole system needs major tweaking or rebalancing. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 09:03:00 -
[126] - Quote
Cearain wrote:What is the point of posting these fits? The idea of having an asb xl or 2 large plus an invuln and resist rigs is that you can do some small gang pvp in them. ASB won't work in large fleets and you don't want to use them for pve. I don't know why you would ever fit a ship the way you did.
Usually when I pvp with an asb I actually pulse it so the rigs you chose seem a bit odd.
Pirate sets can be used in pvp in low sec. Yes you will lose them to glitches in the game/lag and smartbombs but they can be used. This is actually one reason why pvp in low sec is more enjoyable than null sec. You have another layer of complexity to your fits.
So yeah the ships with the bonuses to active tanking do active tank better than the ones with just resists.
The fact that you are calculating the effective hit points has more to do with the fact that the ferox has more structure and shield to begin with. The Cyclone has more Armor but the structure and shield hp is what matters much more when you have a dcu2 and shield tank. Your effectively blaming the cyclone's ship bonus for the fact it doesn't have as much shield or structure. These are completely seperate issues.
If they both had the same hp to start you would see an even larger advantage to the cylcone.
You are the one who started talking about the cyclone with an XLASB and Crystal implants. As stated above, I agree that this example is crap.
Even with exactly the same stats, the Ferox would still have 25% more shield EHP than the Cyclone. And with only 56 EHP/s better boosting on it, I still don't consider it a better active tanker.
Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
162
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 09:07:00 -
[127] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:[quote=Iris Bravemount] Something like this becomes a give and take though. Active bonuses do have the advantage (on armor ships almost moreso, which do not have passive regen) of giving more self-sustainability, and also helping more the longer the fight goes on. Even at current bonus levels, +45% to all incoming reps would be impressive. It does mean not as much good vs alpha strikes however, this is true. But you can't realistically ask for both from one.
Well, resist bonuses grant just that. A bonus to all three types of tanking: active, buffer and remote. Applying the active bonus to incoming remote reps would barely put the two bonuses on par regarding active and remote tanking, while still leaving the resist bonus superior against alpha strikes. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
644
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:37:00 -
[128] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Cearain wrote:What is the point of posting these fits? The idea of having an asb xl or 2 large plus an invuln and resist rigs is that you can do some small gang pvp in them. ASB won't work in large fleets and you don't want to use them for pve. I don't know why you would ever fit a ship the way you did.
Usually when I pvp with an asb I actually pulse it so the rigs you chose seem a bit odd.
Pirate sets can be used in pvp in low sec. Yes you will lose them to glitches in the game/lag and smartbombs but they can be used. This is actually one reason why pvp in low sec is more enjoyable than null sec. You have another layer of complexity to your fits.
So yeah the ships with the bonuses to active tanking do active tank better than the ones with just resists.
The fact that you are calculating the effective hit points has more to do with the fact that the ferox has more structure and shield to begin with. The Cyclone has more Armor but the structure and shield hp is what matters much more when you have a dcu2 and shield tank. Your effectively blaming the cyclone's ship bonus for the fact it doesn't have as much shield or structure. These are completely seperate issues.
If they both had the same hp to start you would see an even larger advantage to the cylcone. You are the one who started talking about the cyclone with an XLASB and Crystal implants. As stated above, I agree that this example is crap. Even with exactly the same stats, the Ferox would still have 25% more shield EHP than the Cyclone. And with only 56 EHP/s better boosting on it, I still don't consider it a better active tanker.
There is nothing wrong with using crystals or asbs with a cyclone. The bonus to active tanking brings about a better active tank than resist bonuses.
The only reason the ferox has a competitive over all tank with an active local repper is because it was given more shield and structure than the cyclone. The bonuses have nothing to do with this fact. If both had the same amount of shield and structure hp then you would see the cyclone is clearly better overal even though the ferox gets a resist bonus.
Once you add in a tech 2 invuln and a dcu2 and a em and thermal shield rig the shield resists for the ferox are 66% 72.8% 72.4% and 77%. The shield resists for the cyclone are 54.7%, 63.8% 63.3% and 69.4%. Thus the difference in resists is about 10% but the difference in shield boost is much higher. This is why the minmatar bonus is better for the active local tanks than the resistance bonus. But yes the resist bonus is more versatile. A fair tradeoff. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
168
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 21:53:00 -
[129] - Quote
Cearain wrote:There is nothing wrong with using crystals or asbs with a cyclone. The bonus to active tanking brings about a better active tank than resist bonuses.
The only reason the ferox has a competitive over all tank with an active local repper is because it was given more shield and structure than the cyclone. The bonuses have nothing to do with this fact. If both had the same amount of shield and structure hp then you would see the cyclone is clearly better overal even though the ferox gets a resist bonus.
Once you add in a tech 2 invuln and a dcu2 and a em and thermal shield rig the shield resists for the ferox are 66% 72.8% 72.4% and 77%. The shield resists for the cyclone are 54.7%, 63.8% 63.3% and 69.4%. Thus the difference in resists is about 10% but the difference in shield boost is much higher. This is why the minmatar bonus is better for the active local tanks than the resistance bonus. But yes the resist bonus is more versatile. A fair tradeoff.
Suddenly, your posts make sense. You obviously don't understand how the resists work. Let me explain.
Let's say ship A has 60% resist, while ship B has 70%. They both get shot at by a gun inflicting 100 damage.
Ship A takes 40 damage, while ship B takes 30 damage.
Because of its "10% lower" resists, ship A just took 33% damage more than ship B.
Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
646
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 22:46:00 -
[130] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Cearain wrote:There is nothing wrong with using crystals or asbs with a cyclone. The bonus to active tanking brings about a better active tank than resist bonuses.
The only reason the ferox has a competitive over all tank with an active local repper is because it was given more shield and structure than the cyclone. The bonuses have nothing to do with this fact. If both had the same amount of shield and structure hp then you would see the cyclone is clearly better overal even though the ferox gets a resist bonus.
Once you add in a tech 2 invuln and a dcu2 and a em and thermal shield rig the shield resists for the ferox are 66% 72.8% 72.4% and 77%. The shield resists for the cyclone are 54.7%, 63.8% 63.3% and 69.4%. Thus the difference in resists is about 10% but the difference in shield boost is much higher. This is why the minmatar bonus is better for the active local tanks than the resistance bonus. But yes the resist bonus is more versatile. A fair tradeoff. Suddenly, your posts make sense. You obviously don't understand how the resists work. Let me explain. Let's say ship A has 60% resist, while ship B has 70%. They both get shot at by a gun inflicting 100 damage. Ship A takes 40 damage, while ship B takes 30 damage. Because of its "10% lower" resists, ship A just took 33% damage more than ship B.
Thats a good point. This explains why the ferox is pretty close to the cyclone in active local tanking but still not quite as good - except for the extra raw shield hitpoints and structure. The latter 2 really are disctinct from its ship bonus.
edit: BTW: you can also say B took 25% less damage than A. It's all in how you want to market your idea. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
169
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 02:20:00 -
[131] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Thats a good point. This explains why the ferox is pretty close to the cyclone in active local tanking but still not quite as good - except for the extra raw shield hitpoints and structure. The latter 2 really are disctinct from its ship bonus. edit: BTW: you can also say B took 25% less damage than A. It's all in how you want to market your idea.
Glad I could help.
You also shouldn't forget that even with the same shield HP amount, a resist bonuses ship would still have 25% more buffer than the active bonused ship to begin with, thanks to its resistance bonus (which suffers no stacking penalty) applying to the base HP as well as to the reps. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
646
|
Posted - 2012.11.14 20:14:00 -
[132] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Cearain wrote:Thats a good point. This explains why the ferox is pretty close to the cyclone in active local tanking but still not quite as good - except for the extra raw shield hitpoints and structure. The latter 2 really are disctinct from its ship bonus. edit: BTW: you can also say B took 25% less damage than A. It's all in how you want to market your idea. Glad I could help. You also shouldn't forget that even with the same shield HP amount, a resist bonuses ship would still have 25% more buffer than the active bonused ship to begin with, thanks to its resistance bonus (which suffers no stacking penalty) applying to the base HP as well as to the reps.
You mean 25% more shield buffer. It does not get 25% more total buffer. As I said the problem with the cyclone (to the extent there is one) is not its bonus it is the fact that it has less raw shield hp and less raw structure hp. Arguing about the total ehp without accounting for the raw hp is where you are not understanding the problem with your position.
The bonus to active tanking is still better for an active tanking ship than the resist bonus. But the resist bonus is more versatile. There really is no issue here.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 14:02:00 -
[133] - Quote
Cearain wrote:[quote=Iris Bravemount]You mean 25% more shield buffer. It does not get 25% more total buffer. As I said the problem with the cyclone (to the extent there is one) is not its bonus it is the fact that it has less raw shield hp and less raw structure hp. Arguing about the total ehp without accounting for the raw hp is where you are not understanding the problem with your position.
The bonus to active tanking is still better for an active tanking ship than the resist bonus. But the resist bonus is more versatile. There really is no issue here.
Very true. However:
- Shield EHP is likely to be the largest portion of the total EHP. - Total EHP do matter, because you don't explode (immediately) once your shields are down. - I consider the lack of versatility to be the problem. Especially considering that the active bonus doesn't outperform the resist bonus that much in its niche.
Basically, I would like a solution that would avoid a wasted bonus in fleets, to give players more choice when deciding what to bring to their next fleet fight.
Others have suggested to remove the versatility provided by the resist bonus entirely and replace it with a buffer bonus. I think this would just make the game a little poorer.
Bottom line: More choice is better.
Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
646
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 14:32:00 -
[134] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:Cearain wrote:Iris Bravemount wrote:You mean 25% more shield buffer. It does not get 25% more total buffer. As I said the problem with the cyclone (to the extent there is one) is not its bonus it is the fact that it has less raw shield hp and less raw structure hp. Arguing about the total ehp without accounting for the raw hp is where you are not understanding the problem with your position.
The bonus to active tanking is still better for an active tanking ship than the resist bonus. But the resist bonus is more versatile. There really is no issue here.
Very true. However: - Shield EHP is likely to be the largest portion of the total EHP. - Total EHP do matter, because you don't explode (immediately) once your shields are down. Yes of course total ehp does matter. So does speed agility, sig radius and several other things that have nothing to do with whether your ship has a boost or a resist bonus. Your argument that the ferox is better at tanking has more to do with the extra raw ehp than it does with the bonus. If the raw ehp was the same for both ships the cyclone would even more clearly be the better active tanker. Iris Bravemount wrote: - I consider the lack of versatility to be the problem. Especially considering that the active bonus doesn't outperform the resist bonus that much in its niche.
I don't know it seems to outperform it pretty well. Plus ASBs are very popular to fly. I really don't see a reason to fly a ferox over a cyclone for solo or small scale pvp. [quote=Iris Bravemount] Basically, I would like a solution that would avoid a wasted bonus in fleets, to give players more choice when deciding what to bring to their next fleet fight. Others have suggested to remove the versatility provided by the resist bonus entirely and replace it with a buffer bonus. I think this would just make the game a little poorer. Bottom line: More choice is better.
I think the all the ships that get a bonus to boosting amount are fine now that we have asbs. They make the best use of this pretty much over powered module.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
170
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 20:14:00 -
[135] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I think the all the ships that get a bonus to shield boosting amount are fine now that we have asbs. They make the best use of this pretty much over powered module.
See, this is the problem. They are now overpowered in their niche, while still not being any better in larger fleets, while the Drake can benefit from both ASBs in small fights and from resists+buffer in large fights. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates Nyanpire
203
|
Posted - 2012.11.15 20:23:00 -
[136] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
I think the all the ships that get a bonus to shield boosting amount are fine now that we have asbs. They make the best use of this pretty much over powered module.
I'd much much rather have a resistance bonus compared to a boost amount bonus when specifically talking about XL ASB's. Increased shield ehp buys you significantly improved reload survivability for a trade off of like 3-4% active tank.
The reality is that a 37.5% rep bonus does not provide enough increase in active tank compared to the 25% resistance bonus to make up for the massive loss in versatility the resistance bonus provides. Rep bonus must be increase to at least 10% per level to make it at the very least "viable" in comparison. If this increase to boost/rep amount will push asbs specifically well beyond balanced levels on said ships, then further iterations(nerfs) upon the modules may be waranted. |
catallin
Bite Me inc
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 10:57:00 -
[137] - Quote
Arline Kley wrote:
Also, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni :)
Not if you take latin lessons.
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
287
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 11:55:00 -
[138] - Quote
Alternative proposal: Reduce resistance bonus to 2% per level.
catallin wrote:Arline Kley wrote:
Also, the plural of bonus is bonuses, not boni :)
Not if you take latin lessons. Last time I checked, we speak English, not Latin. Also, most people don't swap languages half way through a sentence for a single word. Bonuses is correct, boni is incorrect. Unless you are speaking Latin. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
256
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 05:19:00 -
[139] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:This is part of the problem. ATM it seems like the lineups of the three races make you wonder how Amarr and Caldari aren't completely dominating the universe, because they are the only ones to have true ships of the line. I just read this again and it got me thinking...
Amarr ships have a lot going for them in PVP. They have excellent armor buffer with high resists, high armor HP, and tons of powergrid. They're a bit sluggish but that is easily countered with their amazing pulse lasers which have a great range/tracking/damage ratio that makes targets easy to hit, and the beam lasers which hit harder than any other long range weapon.
Caldari hulls, at a glance, are pretty lackluster from a PVP sense. They are dripping with PVP fail, but the ones that fire missiles, have shield resists, or use ECM are so much automatic win that no amount of fail on part of them being Caldari will stop them from being popular. And now rails are decent enough to get used, but a Caldari rail ship that doesn't have other features will still get passed over.
Gallente ships have little use in PVP. They can be used, but there's no real reason to. They're not bad, but they're not good either. They get flown all the time by mediocre pilots, and nobody really makes a reputation for themself with a Gallente ship.
Minmatar ships are fast and agile, with amazing fast-tracking autocannons which are kinda poor at range but can use any damage type. Couple this with the ships having enough powergrid to fit artillery, and you always have a fat chunk left over to fit tons of buffer tank. The slot arrangements are very often favored by many. Minmatar ships are just plain overpowered.
I am making no suggestions here, simply noting what I have observed through my experience in PVP. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
256
|
Posted - 2012.12.25 05:35:00 -
[140] - Quote
Cearain wrote:edit: BTW: you can also say B took 25% less damage than A. It's all in how you want to market your idea. Actually the 33% more damage is a more important point because it compares correctly with the same ship's 37.5% increase in shield boosting. Oh and I did the calculation, it actually is 33% to the nearest tenth of a % (avg. across all resists). But if you wanted to say that the Ferox takes 25% less damage, then you have to change the other unit around and point out that the Ferox regenerates 27.3% less shield HP from the booster. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
458
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 23:22:00 -
[141] - Quote
mine mi wrote:Gallente hitpoints bonus
As far as I'm concerned, armor fitted, an active rep gallente ship using blasters is already the second slowest ship IG in general, add more HP pool means more mass, less agility and even slower, and THAT you don't want it when using blasters in dynamic situations.
I agree everything PVP related is not all about fleet battles but it's certainly not neither all about station and gate camping where this speed is not an issue, dock to recharge your cargo of cap booster charges is not an issue, where a triple rep myrmidon is king of whatever silliness people might come with.
You can build a 4 reps Iteron V with huge tank and enough cargo to feed your cap boosters a very long time but by no means this means Iterons V or active tanking is good, only describes 1 situation very specific that must no be taken in to account for whatever balance. Not more than lol triple rep myrmidons or double rep/injector hyperions.
So people, for the sake of some decent discussion don't bring situational fits to prove pvp is not all about fleets or all about gate camps or all about pve/whatever crap. Armor tanking, and specially active one is in deep need of changes and those changes need to consider the fact because Gallente is more about active tanking by design it shouldn't be used in fleets. Compromises must be found so you can effectively use your ship in a myriad of situations instead of cross training or lol fit your ship because the pawn next door told you variety is good.
For "x" task you should be able to pick "y" tool from whatever race and achieve it the same time but differently. Not with shield mods on armor active tanking ships, it's not a smart choice it's the prove of some very bad design and bad tools given to players that have no other choice than either choose those lol fits or shield tank them. |
Iris Bravemount
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
202
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 10:34:00 -
[142] - Quote
As stated by CCP Fozzie in the Retribution Point Release BC thread, *something* will happen to (active ?) armor tanking.
But the problem discussed here is more about local rep vs remote rep. Simply having active tank bonuses apply to RR would fix the imbalance. Why active tank bonuses are bad for you |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
374
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 12:11:00 -
[143] - Quote
You forgot that Prophecy's resists bonus is around the same you get from EANM.
So... Myrmidon @ level 5 + MAR II + EANM = 96,6 hp/s Prophecy @ level 5 + MAR II = 70,2 hp/s
Prophecy @ level 5 + MAR II + EANM = 93,6 hp/s
See even with two EANMs worth of resists it's not as good as Myrmidon with one EANM.
Myrmidon @ level 5 + MAR II + 2x EANM = 123,4 hp/s |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
464
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 19:11:00 -
[144] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:As stated by CCP Fozzie in the Retribution Point Release BC thread, *something* will happen to (active ?) armor tanking.
But the problem discussed here is more about local rep vs remote rep. Simply having active tank bonuses apply to RR would fix the imbalance.
imho the biggest problem for us, interested in this tanking form balance, is that there's no proper information. So how can someone admit those lol 7.5% bonus are ok without even knowing what's going to happen?
I already know what is going to happen, as many others around already know what is going to happen because we're used to. We'll see those ships balanced around bonus totally useless with actual tanking mechanics/mods, and given another lol'ish balance aka Reactive Armor Hardener and in the end, we'll still be fitting shield rigs and mods.
We'll still be reading "omgfckpwn triple/dble rep Myrmidon/Hyperion owns all", at the gate, at the station...yey...
|
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
246
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 19:55:00 -
[145] - Quote
This thread confuses me.
3% bonus is still a bonus. Thus, if you are flying missions, where the absolute highest number for endurance tanking is what matters, and where buffer and remote tanking are irrelevant, you are slightly better off with the active tanking bonuses.
What's the problem? |
Recoil IV
Air The Unthinkables
84
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:00:00 -
[146] - Quote
are you calling cyclone and myrmidon bad?how dare you sir,i challange you to a duel |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
346
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:21:00 -
[147] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
3% bonus is still a bonus. Thus, if you are flying missions, where the absolute highest number for endurance tanking is what matters, and where buffer and remote tanking are irrelevant, you are slightly better off with the active tanking bonuses.
The only time you are better off with the active tanking bonus is if the additional 3% effectiveness balances out to or exceeds the initial ehp advantage of the resistance bonus.
Don't have time for specifics, but go ahead and figure out how long, or how many reps must be made to "break even". I think you will change your tune once done. |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
682
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:25:00 -
[148] - Quote
i like the option to make RR tanking affected by the armor bonus...
i dont mind that there is less base ehp.
gal ships will generally have more speed and better agility then ammar ships so this should balance them out...
infact a good way to increase balance is to reduce the sig radius of active tanked ships as this would make up for any ehp deficit. At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Crimeo Khamsi
AirHogs Zulu People
246
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 20:54:00 -
[149] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
3% bonus is still a bonus. Thus, if you are flying missions, where the absolute highest number for endurance tanking is what matters, and where buffer and remote tanking are irrelevant, you are slightly better off with the active tanking bonuses.
The only time you are better off with the active tanking bonus is if the additional 3% effectiveness balances out to or exceeds the initial ehp advantage of the resistance bonus. Don't have time for specifics, but go ahead and figure out how long, or how many reps must be made to "break even". I think you will change your tune once done.
Prophecy and Myrmidion:
Prophecy gets about 750 more initial hitpoints from resists if you apply level V resist bonuses to its initial armor (five 5% bonuses beyond the starting 30% resistances gives you about another 16% absolute/overall resist amount)
Going by the calculations in the OP, where the Myrmidion can repair 2 extra HP per second, you would break even in 750 / 2 = 375 seconds, or 6 minutes, 15 seconds.
In practice, though, it may be more like 4 minutes or so, because once you apply your cruiser level V skill bonuses, you go from 30% to 46% armor resistances on average. Which means that any armor resist modules you add on are actually somewhat less effective due to the resists added by your cruiser skill bonus.
Also, since we are talking about armor here, not shields, you have to take into account the occasional need to go back to a station to rep up in the middle of a mission. Whenever you do that, the active armor tanking offers a MASSIVE advantage, because at a station, active repping bonuses allow you to get back into the action much faster, while resists don't help you AT ALL (since nobody is shooting at you)
So any missioners who frequently return to station to rep will certainly be much better off with active armor rep bonuses. They will "break even" and pay for themselves easily in one single station rep trip. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates The Retirement Club
347
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 21:00:00 -
[150] - Quote
Crimeo Khamsi wrote:
In practice, though, it may be more like 4 minutes or so, because once you apply your cruiser level V skill bonuses, you go from 30% to 46% armor resistances on average. Which means that any armor resist modules you add on are actually somewhat less effective due to the resists added by your cruiser skill bonus.
Sorry, that is not how it works. Ship bonuses are not stacking penalized with other resistance mods, of any sort.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |