|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
212
   |
Posted - 2012.11.22 14:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'd say that the balance between shield and armor buffer tanks is pretty much spot on. Shield ships forgo tackle, resistances, and overall ehp for an advantage in dps, range, and mobility. Armor buffer ships obviously favor the inverse most specifically focused on higher resistance values and better "fleet level tanks" due to higher resistances. The disadvantages of the corresponding rigs I think is spot on at the moment as well. Trimarks and armor resistance rigs should retain their speed pen, just as Field extenders and shield resistance rigs should retain their sig pen.
The major issue between the two types of tanking comes down to the active niche, which unfortunately will always be a niche do to the scaling nature of buffer/resistance tanks in larger fleet that include logistic ships. In their current form there is no question that active shield tanking has a very significant advantage in comparison to active armor tanking which has also (despite what some may say) been present long before the introduction of the much loathed asb module. Thankfully the ASB (specifically xl-asb) will be receiving significant nerfs in the retribution xpack at the very least making them more balanced in comparison to other active shield tanking options. While I feel this is most certainly an overall improvement it does not address one of the major issues which is the imbalance in overall effectiveness between resistance and active tanking bonuses present on ships. For further discussion on this specific topic I'd like to forward this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=169936 rather than just rehash what has been said.
The other major issues come from the lack of balance in the armor vs shield repper/booster modules independent of the ships they are attached to. I strongly believe that these modules should effective w/o requiring a ship with an active or even resistance bonuses which outside of very specific ships (some afs, faction BS, some hacs) is simply not the case. First and foremost I think a detailed analysis of the imbalance between faction/DS armor and shield reppers/boosters need to be done. A quick look through of these modules simply shows that the increase in tank between armor and shield as meta level increases is simply not proportional, significantly improving the relative strength of shield boosters compared to armor reppers in this comparison. The solution is to either give the armor reppers a distinct separate advantage or to simply level the playing field by buffing high meta level armor reppers to allow their hp/s to scale at an equal level that shield boosters do.
Second, a highly detailed look into fitting requirements of specifically medium and large armor reppers needs to be done to allow for these modules to be more easily fit onto ships intent on using them. At the moment the pg requirement, as well as slot requirement (2-3 for bcs, 2 for bs) commonly outweighs the benefits especially when compared to shield boosters and passive/buffer tanking modules. The total slot amount I do not see being reduced, however the overall effectiveness that utilizing these slots for said tanking modules I strongly believe is out of wack. There are just too many compromises that must be made to field even a modest active armor tank. These compromises are lower dps, lower speed, and massive cap issues only solved by the use of even more slots. The shared pen between ehp and active rigs is also and issue very commonly touched upon by the community. I think at this point it is more or less undeniable that the speed pen on active armor rigs needs to be swapped for something that makes the small scale niche of these type of ships less effected.
In the end what's needed is a balancing of the progressing of high meta level shield and armor reppers/boosters along with most probably a reduction in cap usage/fitting of armor reppers (medium, and large) as well as a change to active tanking rig penalties. I believe that with the the proposed change from 7.5% to 10% (or more) per level to rep amount on active bonused ships we may finally see a more balanced eve, something that has been needed for many many years and seems to be a heavy focus point of the modern ccp. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
216
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 23:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
I don't think increasing the bonus armor repairing a ship gives is quite the right solution. Ideally, you'd also want to give active armor tanking to non-repair bonus ships as a viable option once again. I think a better solution would be to increase the base repair amount for armor repairers by maybe an extra 25%, 33%, or even 50% and increase the PG requirements some. Instead of three armor repairers for a decent tank you'd need only two and would free up a low slot for a damage or resistance module.
This does not address the imbalance between rep bonus and resistance bonuses ships at all though. Currently there is less than a 3% difference in active tank between a ship with 25% resistance (lvl 5 ship skill) and 37.5% rep amount (lvl 5 ship skill) in favor of the active bonus. If you ignore this then we are right back at square one with resistance ships being plain better... Increasing rep amount is the only reasonable way to make the bonus at all viable in comparison. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
216
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 00:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Perihelion Olenard wrote:
Yes, that it true. You're talking about amarr and caldari ships. Generally, they have more mass, are built towards being defensive, and aren't as maneuverable as gallente and minmatar. It's generally more difficult for them to pick their fights because of it. It's just my opinion that they need the extra defense to justify it.
And this is why we see so many ships with 7.5% armor rep bonus per level being used in pvp I know I'm being a bit facetious but I don't know how else to really get the point across.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
217
|
Posted - 2012.11.29 00:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Perihelion Olenard wrote:The reason you don't see many people using that 7.5% repairer bonus anymore is because the repairers have become bad. Minmatar is certainly putting their 7.5% shield boost bonus to good use. Confirming that tripple-rep Myrmidons are not actually a thing. I also never see dual-rep Hyperions flying around low sec either.
Tripple rep myrmidons are good at tanking maybe 2 BCs max and do wet noodle dmg in comparison. Dual rep Hyperions, while effective against another BS 1v1 DIAF super fast when dps fielded is 1700+ or more as well as doing far less dps than a mega while having an even smaller fighting envelope. Add nuets into the mix and yeah, both may as well not even be present.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
224
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 18:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Paikis wrote:
7. P.S active bonus vs resistance bonus
This tends to cover most of the posts in this thread. You are looking at ONE FACET of the ship and crying imbalance. You cannot do that, you have to take the ship as a whole. Maybe the ship with the resistance bonus doesn't have the capacitor or fittings to run an effective active tank? Maybe the ship with the repair bonus has extra cap to power the reps?
Funny how it's exactly the opposite of the examples you used here. The ships with resistance bonuses have better relative fitting, have more cap, and higher base armor hp.
What they are lacking is a small amount of speed, and maximum potential dps.
You're analysis of active bonus vs resistance bonus is inherently flawed because of this.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
224
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 19:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Your point between the hyperion and abaddon is indeed valid however it is pretty much the exlclusive exception to the rule when looking at cap between gallente and amarrian ships. Comparing the cap of pretty much every other gallente rep bonused ships to ammarian resistance bonused ships puts the ammarian ships at quite a distinct advantage. Punisher to incursus, brutix to proph, absolution to astarte ect ect. |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
243
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 13:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Paikis wrote:
I would support removal of XL-SBs, as long as you're willing to support removal of 1600mm plates. Fair is fair after all.
are you trying to say that 1600mm are overpowered? |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
244
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 13:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Paikis wrote:
I would support removal of XL-SBs, as long as you're willing to support removal of 1600mm plates. Fair is fair after all.
are you trying to say that 1600mm are overpowered? No, I'm saying that the 1600mm plate is the over sized equivalent to the XL-SB.
How is a passive module that increases ehp the equivalent to an active module that eats cap to boost? |
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
244
|
Posted - 2012.12.18 13:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
"if one is op they are all op" sounds like oversimplified bad logic to me
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
319
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 15:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think that a reduction of the grid requirements on medium reppers as well as the 7.5% boost per level bonus changed to 10% per level on all hulls with active armor bonus would be a good start. I also strongly feel that medium cap booster "capacity" should be increased to allow for 2x navy 800 boosters to bit fit into a t2 med cap booster. Currently 1 med cap booster with 800 charges is not even enough to run a dual rep tank. |
|
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
322
|
Posted - 2012.12.30 18:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:I think that a reduction of the grid requirements on medium reppers as well as the 7.5% boost per level bonus changed to 10% per level on all hulls with active armor bonus would be a good start. I also strongly feel that medium cap booster "capacity" should be increased to allow for 2x navy 800 boosters to bit fit into a t2 med cap booster. Currently 1 med cap booster with 800 charges is not even enough to run a dual rep tank. Increasing the bonus to 10% will only benefit ships with the bonus, but wouldn't change anything for unbonused active tanking which is quite lacking.
As as been stated numerous times before. W/o a 10% per level to repper bonus, the 5% per level to resistance will be essentially superior in almost every situation. At level 5 the difference between a ship with 7.5% to rep and 5% to resistances is about 3% in active tank, however the ship with resistances has far more ehp and has the "versatility" advantage being able to field both active and buffer tanks very effectively via bonus. This is the fundamental reason that the 7.5% per level active bonus is not sufficient.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
323
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 14:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Just a worthless comment:
These are two separate topics though, one saying active tank % hull bonus needs a boost to properly out-perform the passive, the other about how it doesn't help at all make the majority of ships' (ones lacking such bonus) local armor tank better (which they are probably in need of).
If you're going to be looking at the overall balance of tanking modules and types in this game I see no reason to not address the balance issue between resistance and active bonuses at the same time. I'm in no way against a potential buff to the rep output of the modules themselves however as stated, w/o an increase to the active bonus, ships with resistance bonuses will be just as superior as they are today. Maybe resistance bonuses need a nerf to 4% per level?
The overall goal should be to make active armor tanking more appealing and changes to the modules themselves are the only way you're going to achieve this on ships w/o active bonuses. As I touched upon, a decrease to the fitting requirements should be the first step with other changes to specifically medium cap boosters focused on enabling a pilot to run 2 MARII or equivalent with a single booster. Currently a single t2 booster with 800s is not able to keep up with 2 reppers, factor in guns that use cap and prop mod usage and you're often unable to even take advantage of your extremely slot heavy tank. If it's determined that buff's to the reppers cycle time or rep amount is needed, then I'm all for it. I personally just hate over buffing and I'd hate to see that happen here with active armor tanks.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
323
|
Posted - 2012.12.31 14:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Paikis wrote:
Having said that, given equal slots, and armour tank will have more buffer, probably better resists, and acceptable repair rates (ASBs not included)
Acceptable repair rate? I suppose the term "acceptable" makes this statement simply personal. As far as slot numbers and power of tank compared to active armor and shield... It's a no contest winner in favor of shield tanks, and has been for many many years. Armor generally does have slightly higher resistances and higher overall buffer when comparatively buffer fit... Active tanks though? come on paikis...
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
333
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 14:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
Paikis wrote:
You aren't asking for balance, you're asking for them to be the same. Balance would be where one (shields) does something (active tank) better than the other (armour), but the other one (armour) does something else (buffer tank) better than the first (shields).
Umm, that's not called balance, that's called bad balance, which we've had for years...
First off, claiming that armor is better at buffer tanks is extremely short sighted and simply not true. Secondly, arguing that active armor tanking should be worse than active shield because shield buffer is worse (which again is not true) is simply moronic... You're justifying pore balance with pore analysis of the overall tanking styles, please stop...
Either way, CCP has already stated that active armor tanking is bad and not working as intended. You can be more or less guaranteed to see changes to the modules and ship bonuses in the near future.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
The Nyan Cat Pirates
Nyanpire
333
|
Posted - 2013.01.03 14:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:"Better at buffer" is relative, be careful there! You could say buffered armor ships lack in situation X and Y, but anyone could come along and say they are better because they can have more raw EHP T2 fit, and Guardian/Archon backup is awesome. And who wouldn't want a Logi on his back at any time. The game is too complicated, throwing out a line without proper context is just asking for it. I know, I do it a lot.
Which is exactly why I stated that a claim of armor being "better at buffer" is short sighted. Simply comparing raw hep values w/o addressing other facets of the ships will always end in a sub par analysis. The "acertation" that armor buffer tanks are better than shield are simply based on simplistic ehp value comparisons.
|
|
|
| |
|