EVE Search - [Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

[Retribution 1.1] Armor Tanking 2.0

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 45 post(s)
Bouh Revetoile Barricade. 235	Posted - 2013.02.07 09:46:00 - [1231] - Quote Edey wrote: Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? That and why there are 3 sub-cap armor repair mods (small, med and large) while shield has 4? Because there is 6 armor buffer module versus 3 shield buffer module.
Hakan MacTrew Caledonian Light Industries 296	Posted - 2013.02.07 13:01:00 - [1232] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Edey wrote: Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? That and why there are 3 sub-cap armor repair mods (small, med and large) while shield has 4? Because there is 6 armor buffer module versus 3 shield buffer module. Not to mention armours 15 resistance modules over shields 9. Oh, and the fact that a DC gives twice as much resistance to armour as it does shields... MODULAR DRONES MORE ORE SHIPS
Funky Lazers Shin-Ra Ltd 230	Posted - 2013.02.07 13:15:00 - [1233] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: Bouh Revetoile wrote: Edey wrote: Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? That and why there are 3 sub-cap armor repair mods (small, med and large) while shield has 4? Because there is 6 armor buffer module versus 3 shield buffer module. Not to mention armours 15 resistance modules over shields 9. Oh, and the fact that a DC gives twice as much resistance to armour as it does shields... You can have 100 armor resist mods and still it means nothing. Shield have invuls and active hardeners which is more than enough to be better at tanking. My Pithum A-Type adaptive invul gives me 46% of every resists. Show me the same mod on armor tanking. Whatever.
Naomi Anthar No Tax So Relax. 24	Posted - 2013.02.07 13:50:00 - [1234] - Quote Shield have [b]invuls[/ba] nd active hardeners which is more than enough to be better at tanking. My Pithum A-Type adaptive invul gives me 46% of every resists. Show me the same mod on armor tanking. While i agree shields are vastly superior i must mention armor got active hardeners too. Just not omni. And that makes big difference.
Jerick Ludhowe Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans 401	Posted - 2013.02.07 13:55:00 - [1235] - Quote Naomi Anthar wrote: While i agree shields are vastly superior i must mention armor got active hardeners too. Just not omni. And that makes big difference. You need 1 of each specific hardener to equal the effectiveness of 2 invulns. 4 slots vs 2 slots does make a big difference.
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 536	Posted - 2013.02.07 15:31:00 - [1236] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: Naomi Anthar wrote: While i agree shields are vastly superior i must mention armor got active hardeners too. Just not omni. And that makes big difference. You need 1 of each specific hardener to equal the effectiveness of 2 invulns. 4 slots vs 2 slots does make a big difference. And double cap consumption for ships already loosing huge chunks of cap just by firing their ammo and still require the mandatory cap injector. Even if the invulnerability field gets the passive resist removed thus decreasing tank, ships using those can still fire their ammo, once your armor ship is cap out only thing you can do is watch your ship explode. RAH didn't help on cap saving, no no. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 536	Posted - 2013.02.07 15:34:00 - [1237] - Quote Hakan MacTrew wrote: Not to mention armours 15 resistance modules over shields 9. Oh, and the fact that a DC gives twice as much resistance to armour as it does shields... You should really train all those uber armor skills, fly active armor tanking ships and then come back give us a couple lessons and tell us shields are underpowered. You're not getting the core of the problem, at all. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++
PavlikX You are in da lock 46	Posted - 2013.02.07 18:04:00 - [1238] - Quote Well, for what reason AAR needed? Add paste loading to the ordinary repairers. No limitations, versions and so on. They are exists allready. PS Just idea
Jerick Ludhowe Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans 402	Posted - 2013.02.07 18:22:00 - [1239] - Quote With just 5 days till the release of 1.1 it seems much of these changes are more or less set in stone... Fozzie, I find it rather disheartening that outside of a modest decrease in grid requirements, there have been no real changes to standard reppers. AAR are cool and all but I think you've dropped the ball on addressing some of the major concerns that have been voiced by the most experienced this community has to offer over the past 4+ years. You did not even mention the imbalance in the progression of deadspace reppers vs boosters which to me indicates you and your cohorts have done a rather sloppy job. Beyond the vast imbalance in hp per second, you missed another major issue with the dead space comparison which ends up putting the cap efficiency in favor of shield mods instead of armor reppers which is beyond short sighted. You guys need to actually start running numbers on the entirety of the comparison, not just selectively choosing what you want to focus on. Overall I must say that this active armor tanking "buff" is nothing more than gimmick. Not impressed in the slightest.
Naomi Anthar No Tax So Relax. 26	Posted - 2013.02.07 19:12:00 - [1240] - Quote Jerick Ludhowe wrote: With just 5 days till the release of 1.1 it seems much of these changes are more or less set in stone... Fozzie, I find it rather disheartening that outside of a modest decrease in grid requirements, there have been no real changes to standard reppers. AAR are cool and all but I think you've dropped the ball on addressing some of the major concerns that have been voiced by the most experienced this community has to offer over the past 4+ years. You did not even mention the imbalance in the progression of deadspace reppers vs boosters which to me indicates you and your cohorts have done a rather sloppy job. Beyond the vast imbalance in hp per second, you missed another major issue with the dead space comparison which ends up putting the cap efficiency in favor of shield mods instead of armor reppers which is beyond short sighted. You guys need to actually start running numbers on the entirety of the comparison, not just selectively choosing what you want to focus on. Overall I must say that this active armor tanking "buff" is nothing more than gimmick. Not impressed in the slightest. Can i like this post more times ? Not just once ? Yeah progression in deadspace/faction reps compared to what shield boosters get is another gamebreaking advantage for PvE mostly , but still advantage.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy 341	Posted - 2013.02.07 19:36:00 - [1241] - Quote Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration...
Naomi Anthar No Tax So Relax. 30	Posted - 2013.02.07 19:54:00 - [1242] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration... Bla bla bla. And then we should compare armor tanking to what ? Hull tanking ? Yeah. I guess so.
Funky Lazers Shin-Ra Ltd 231	Posted - 2013.02.07 22:02:00 - [1243] - Quote Naomi Anthar wrote: Bla bla bla. And then we should compare armor tanking to what ? Hull tanking ? Yeah. I guess so. I still think you chose the wrong comparison, we should compare Armor tanking to Hybrid turrets or Afterburners. Well, those things too use cap, so we can balance around that. All in all, I just wonder how do you balance something if you don't have a comparison? Skunky Denmark wrote: Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same So Kronos is designed to tank an empty space and Golem should tank asteroids? Right? Whatever.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War Out of Sight. 969	Posted - 2013.02.07 22:38:00 - [1244] - Quote Pinky Denmark wrote: Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration... How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking. I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same 14
Sergeant Acht Scultz School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 538	Posted - 2013.02.07 23:29:00 - [1245] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: Pinky Denmark wrote: Funky Lazers wrote: I see there is no change about active armor tanking with normal T2/faction reppers. So my question is simple, why my 4 slot tank Golem tanks 25-30% better than my 4 slot tank Kronos? Moreover, tanking mods on my Golem are 2 times cheaper then Kronos's ones. Will that be fixed someday? comparing armor tank DIRECTLY with shield tank is bad mkay? Especially when the 2 ships are not designed to tank the same, but are designed to be somewhat balanced against eachother taking many stats into consideration... How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking. I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same I don't always agree with this man, I might have some specifics different opinions but in this very particular case, all I can say is: 1000-¦ likes man. And I'm fecking lazy to speak English well enough or I'd say I love what he just said. Gò¡Gê¬Gò«n+ên+¦n++n+¦n+ëGò¡Gê¬Gò«-á don't haten++
Goldensaver Marsuud And Sons Industries 131	Posted - 2013.02.07 23:31:00 - [1246] - Quote As to all the discussion about deadspace mods here... yeah, those really need to get fixed. The deadspace progression is pretty messed up. Shield tanking is tough with T2 mods, but far too powerful with deadspace (ASB's not included). I'd like to see them bring down deadspace shield mods a LARGE chunk, and T2 shield up ever so slightly. As far as armour bring the T2's up moderately/significantly while bringing down deadspace a bit. Deadspace should be a luxury that only improves the chances when tanking. Not an absolute necessity to active tank at all (ASB's not included) except in very gimmicky circumstances.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.07 23:37:00 - [1247] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: How's that?... Direct comparison is the wrong way because of the module availability in the two racks used, slot counts in said racks and base resistances ... compare them yes, but not directly cap/cap, hp/hp, etc. Fon Revedhort wrote: I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same AAR does just that, gives you the peak to the regular repairers efficiency, but it is a good point. There should be a wider range to choose from .. as a FW monkey I'd like to call dibs and have the navy reppers be insane in either department
Bouh Revetoile Barricade. 235	Posted - 2013.02.08 00:31:00 - [1248] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking. I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same It's precisely how it shouldn't, because that oclude everything the systems don't share. How do you compare the mid slot availability of the armor tanker versus the low slot availability of the shield one, for example ? And in this comparison made earlier : why isn't the cap stability compared too ? And how will you compare the availability of rigs to boost rep amount for armor but not for shield ? Basicaly, active armor is designed to be cap efficient, but slow and not so bursty, though you can more easily boost the burst ability with rigs and add more repairer (there is more low slots than mid slots). On the other side, shield are built with high burst but very low cap efficiency, though you can boost this cap efficiency with rigs and boost amplifier (though this last one cost a valuable mid slot).
Aralieus Shadowbane Syndicate 84	Posted - 2013.02.08 02:58:00 - [1249] - Quote Naomi Anthar wrote: Shield have [b]invuls[/ba] nd active hardeners which is more than enough to be better at tanking. My Pithum A-Type adaptive invul gives me 46% of every resists. Show me the same mod on armor tanking. While i agree shields are vastly superior i must mention armor got active hardeners too. Just not omni. And that makes big difference. Armor also has awkward resistance phasing wtfomgmycapisgone module Oderint Dum Metuant
Bienator II madmen of the skies 1486	Posted - 2013.02.08 03:15:00 - [1250] - Quote AAR description: "... Deactivating the module while it has no Nanite Repair Paste loaded starts reloading, if there is Nanite Repair Paste available in cargo hold. ...." thats a showstopper for me. As soon i am caped out or want to pause the reps to safe energy the tank is gone for 60s. It happened to me the first time i tried it on the testserver, fought a ship which had a neut and i had a cap booster. As soon my cap was empty and the rep stopped for a short period (short before my booster hit) it reloaded. This basically means that the "short burst + sustained tank" promise won't work in most of the fights i am usually in. a eve-style bounty system (done)-á dust boarding parties You fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2013.02.08 03:51:00 - [1251] - Quote Bienator II wrote: AAR description: "... Deactivating the module while it has no Nanite Repair Paste loaded starts reloading, if there is Nanite Repair Paste available in cargo hold. ...." thats a showstopper for me. As soon i am caped out or want to pause the reps to safe energy the tank is gone for 60s. It happened to me the first time i tried it on the testserver, fought a ship which had a neut and i had a cap booster. As soon my cap was empty and the rep stopped for a short period (short before my booster hit) it reloaded. This basically means that the "short burst + sustained tank" promise won't work in most of the fights i am usually in. That's why you disable auto reload. You can choose when it reloads, even if you turn the repairer off. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Antonio Steele Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2013.02.08 03:56:00 - [1252] - Quote one thing they should do is change the bonus for the repair systems skill to a bonus to repair amount per cycle. The shorter cycle time bonus actually hurts a lot of tanks as you have to then make compromises to keep cap up. For instance, If I train the repair systems skill up a level, I would have to replace an armor rig with a cap rig to keep cap up, and have a net loss in armor hp/s. Most people I know suggest keeping that skill at 4 as that fulfills all minimum requirements. Its the only skill I know of that people suggest not maxing out ever. It sucks.
Perihelion Olenard Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 141	Posted - 2013.02.08 03:59:00 - [1253] - Quote It doesn't hurt tanks at all. It increases the amount of repairing you can do in a shorter amount of time. You do not have to run the repairer continuously if you don't want to. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Goldensaver Marsuud And Sons Industries 131	Posted - 2013.02.08 06:59:00 - [1254] - Quote Antonio Steele wrote: one thing they should do is change the bonus for the repair systems skill to a bonus to repair amount per cycle. The shorter cycle time bonus actually hurts a lot of tanks as you have to then make compromises to keep cap up. For instance, If I train the repair systems skill up a level, I would have to replace an armor rig with a cap rig to keep cap up, and have a net loss in armor hp/s. Most people I know suggest keeping that skill at 4 as that fulfills all minimum requirements. Its the only skill I know of that people suggest not maxing out ever. It sucks. Most people never used to max afterburner either. They changed that now though. But this would be somewhat of a nerf to armour tanks. You should realize that though it would be nice for it to repair more, increasing cap stability, it's also important that those reps land when you need them. Reducing the cycle time allows you to time your reps more easily. Shield has a large advantage here due to instantaneous boosts right when you need them. Armour you have to know exactly how long it'll take them to get your armour where you want it to rep, or you run the risk of letting them get you into structure before the rep hits, or overrepping and wasting part of a cycle, and you can only make that mistake so many times. It's hard to strike a balance with something like this. And you might as well train it to V. There's no reason not to (you can pulse it when you need it) and if you ever need a faster running rep it definitely doesn't hurt to have.
Veshta Yoshida PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 520	Posted - 2013.02.08 11:53:00 - [1255] - Quote Goldensaver wrote: Most people never used to max afterburner either. They changed that now though.... They did what now? You are not by any chance referring to the oversized AB phenomenon where the saved cap is noticeable .. because I'll be damned if I (as a declared anti-oversizer) see any reason whatsoever to train that pointless skill higher than 3-4. CCP did not do that, we players did in our never ending pursuit of min-max bliss. As for the rest: That is the beauty of active armour, it is not a simpletons chosen method of tanking as it requires considerations and choices far beyond that of active shield .. absolute nightmare if one get hit with latency spikes, but with everything running smoothly one (read: I) get a lot more satisfaction out of juggling cap/armour/hull/transversal than just cap which is all active shield amounts to if you ask me and the main reason why I too consider the ASB flawed .. then again, could just be my Amarr hulls with neut bonuses talking
Fon Revedhort Monks of War Out of Sight. 971	Posted - 2013.02.08 12:17:00 - [1256] - Quote Bouh Revetoile wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: How's that? Comparing active tanking of equal (class-wise) ships with equal (meta- and slot-wise) fittings and mods is precisely how we should compare things. I don't see any reason why active armour tanking should be subpar to shield one, especially given how we seem to be retaining a nation hugely oriented towards active armour tanking. I think one thing really missing for armour is the ability to pick between cap efficiency and peak tank - like what shield has got with its Gist/Pith lineup. While our mods are all the same It's precisely how it shouldn't, because that oclude everything the systems don't share. How do you compare the mid slot availability of the armor tanker versus the low slot availability of the shield one, for example ? And in this comparison made earlier : why isn't the cap stability compared too ? And how will you compare the availability of rigs to boost rep amount for armor but not for shield ? Basicaly, active armor is designed to be cap efficient, but slow and not so bursty, though you can more easily boost the burst ability with rigs and add more repairer (there is more low slots than mid slots). On the other side, shield are built with high burst but very low cap efficiency, though you can boost this cap efficiency with rigs and boost amplifier (though this last one cost a valuable mid slot). The truth is, tech2 XLSB+SBA = 2 LARs in terms of cap efficiency and pretty much in sheer tanking, too. Armour having better default resistances is negated by invuls being so much better. In case for deadspace stuff - and that was the main point - shield tanking is plain better. As for slot balance and availability, it is really flawed since TEs are so absurdly good and neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls. I guess I can safely state that if any ship would have X/6/6 slots lineup and no bonuses to tanking, it would be shield-tanked pretty much always. Machariel is a perfect example (and that is a 8/5/7 ship) - you hardly encounter active armour tanked ones at all. TL;DR: tech2 tanking is more or less balanced, deadspace is not 14
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 1281	Posted - 2013.02.08 13:08:00 - [1257] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls. Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion.... Did you wake up and smoke crack today?
Fon Revedhort Monks of War Out of Sight. 972	Posted - 2013.02.08 13:17:00 - [1258] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: neither webs nor EW are of any major appeal on unbonused hulls. Yea, obviously, with all the ships running around with unbonused webs and ewar I can see where you came to that conclusion.... Did you wake up and smoke crack today? I'm not sure whether your racial level allows it, but you should be comparing that to proliferation of nanos, damage mods and TEs. 14
Funky Lazers Shin-Ra Ltd 232	Posted - 2013.02.08 13:36:00 - [1259] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: TL;DR: tech2 tanking is more or less balanced, deadspace is not I'm not some EFT warrior, but here's EFT SS about T2 tanking balance. Shield is better at burst tanking AND at sustained one. Invuls make this difference even more distant. Whatever.
Mund Richard 304	Posted - 2013.02.08 13:56:00 - [1260] - Quote Funky Lazers wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: TL;DR: tech2 tanking is more or less balanced, deadspace is not I'm not some EFT warrior, but here's EFT SS about T2 tanking balance. Shield is better at burst tanking AND at sustained one. Invuls make this difference even more distant. For those not particularly fond of numbers, but saying armor has better resists. After two T2 invulns and EAMNs the resist numbers in decreasing order on a caldari hull (for similar base resist profiles) 70.6 > 67.7 > 56 > 47.2 (avg resist 2.524 according to EFT) 74.1> 69 > 58.6 > 48.3 (avg resist 2.665) Trick question: Which one is the armor and which one the shield? One is over 5.5% more effective Addendum 1: The following resists are achieved by 4d4h34m worth of training for one, and I think 59d6h13m for the other. Which is which. (Talking about active tanking, you need to have cap, so situations where cap is not available are irrelevant) Addendum 2: with deadspace mods: 84.3 > 81.1 > 74.8 > 68.5 (avg res 4.381) 77.6 > 75.4 > 66.4 > 59.7 (avg resist 3.312) Hmm, did I load T1 somewhere by accident? Wish there was a Rogue Drone Faction Battleship... Infested Domi! Including all the wiggly bits to tend to your swarm, droneboat role bonus, and ofc with turrets.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 53 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,73s, ref 20250927/0510
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.