Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Call me crazy, but I'm kinda getting the impression that CCP Devs really hate Armor.
Like... really... hate... armor...
ASB In General - Fit as many as you want, we don't give a crap. Oh, and while they're loaded with charges, they are Capless. So use 2-3 and offset the reloads for RIDICULOUS PERMATANK!!!1!1!one!
Small ASB - 8x Cap 25s = 3200 ISK to load. Medium ASB - 8x Cap 50s = 8000 ISK Large ASB - 8x Cap 150s = 24,800 ISK XL ASB - 8x Cap 400 = 32,000 ISK
AAB In General - Only fit 1 at a time. Sorry, you're not cool like Shields. Oh, and regardless of charges, you still burn Cap. Sucks if you get neuted, but you knew that anyway.
Small AAB - 8x Nanite Paste = 30,000 ISK (as much as loading an XL ASB) Medium AAB - 32x Nanite Paste = 120,000 ISK Large AAB - 64x Nanite Paste = 240,000 ISK XL AAB... oh wait, doesn't exist.
First off, whose idea was it to burn Paste? A rather rare and valuable [strike]Farmville[/strike] Planetary Interaction commodity.
Then add in the continued Cap draw. Justified as "we don't want armor tanking to be like shields"
And tack on "limited to one" just for extra oomph. Justified as "we saw how powerful that made ASBs, and rather than go fix ASB, we're going to pre-nerf AABs" |
Whitehound
833
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
They are also removing the passive resists on all hardeners (shield + armor). This means all tanks will become more sensitive to cap warfare.
The AAR seems to require only little extra cargo space for its nanites and most of the cargo space can still be used for cap charges to feed a cap booster.
The ASB will have to share cap charges with a cap booster and cargo space becomes a limiting factor.
It appears the AAR was not implemented as a 1:1 counter to the ASB, but rather is the more enduring version of it. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
521
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
You must be the only person who uses T1 cap charges in a large or XL ASB. |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
242
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 00:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nope dev's don't hate armour.
They deffinately don't want to make arour tanking the same a shield tanking that is all.
You are comparing car to motorbikes because they bothe have engines and wheels and operate on the road. They are different and opperate differently yet both do a similar job (get you from A to B)
Get over it allready. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
740
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 01:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Forget paste cost. Compared to XL ASB, LAAR repairs less, needs more grid, and oh yeah, consumes cap. It consumes cap, lol. What's the point of this again?
Of course, it's unfair to compare XL to L, after all, one fits better. I like how Winmatar BCs can easily fit XL ASB with plenty of room to spare, using no cap, while Myrm is stuck with medium sized AARs because larges don't fit, and proceeds to cap itself out.
Hey, anyone remember the Reactive Hardner? It's gonna have company. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 01:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm thinking of taking up full-time shield tanking. It's not because I think shield tanking is all that much better, it is purely so I can no longer be associated by these whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I mean good god people, can't you just imagine the same thread as a tantrum from a 3 year old, complete with stamping of feet and screaming?
Grow up. |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Over-entitled, what?
Shields have passive regen. Shields have active omni resist mods. Shields leave plenty of space for damage mods.
Oh, and more on topic... Shields can throw as many ASB as they want on a ship, chain the reloads, and tank forever...
Yeah, Armor guys are living it up... |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!!
And I only use a single repper and no cap boost!
Armour is fine and getting better! If you don't know how to do it properly then go find out rather than whinging on the forums! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
643
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:Over-entitled, what?
Shields have passive regen. - Armour has bigger buffer Shields have active omni resist mods. - Armour has passive omni-resist mods. Shields leave plenty of space for damage mods. - Armour leaves plenty of room for EWAR.
Oh, and more on topic... Shields can throw as many ASB as they want on a ship, chain the reloads, and tank forever... - Assuming by 'forever' you mean until they run out of cap charges
Yeah, Armor guys are living it up...
I said you're whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I also compared you to a 3 year old throwing a tantrum. My other responses in bold. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
186
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 06:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. |
|
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
743
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon.
You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Goldensaver
Marsuud And Sons Industries
140
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:27:00 -
[12] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? Because some people still use reps, and an AAR reps ~67% better than a T2 repper, even if for just 30-60 seconds? |
To mare
Advanced Technology
169
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? because they are damn good especially with the other changes made to rigs and fitting requirements, still dont see the problem of seeing nanite paste price going to the roof |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
244
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 07:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
nanite paste is expensive because the demand isn't high enough to push production.
They have already stated that they may look at the requirements to make it so chill and see what happens when there is a higher demand for it.
Higher demand Initial higher prices Higher manufacturing to follow demand/prices prices will stablise to match supply demand curve.
How markets work! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Elena Thiesant
Sun Micro Systems
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 08:23:00 -
[15] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:First off, whose idea was it to burn Paste? A rather rare and valuable [strike]Farmville[/strike] Planetary Interaction commodity.
Several players who commented in the thread in F&I. The initial design of the AAR (which can be seen in the quote in https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2499731#post2499731) used cap charges. Several players asked that the charge be changed to nantite paste.
Starting here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2499345#post2499345 |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
127
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
I do think that AARs will be used less than ASBs were when they were first deployed...
But I think they will be an ancillary module rather than a primary. I envisage armour ships which normally run dual rep (or triple rep) set-ups loading a cap booster (because rep, blasters and lasers...) a T2 rep (or two) and then their AAR. Most of the time they'll run on the chargeless, efficient, T2 rep but when that isn't enough then the AAR kicks in and gives them three times the rep they had.
I'm imagining quad rep Myrms (effectively), triple rep Brutix and Hyperions... Fortunately I'm not imagining dual rep heavy plated Abaddons - that would just be painful... |
chris elliot
EG CORP Talocan United
132
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:47:00 -
[17] - Quote
Paikis wrote:I'm thinking of taking up full-time shield tanking. It's not because I think shield tanking is all that much better, it is purely so I can no longer be associated by these whiney over-entitled armour tankers. I mean good god people, can't you just imagine the same thread as a tantrum from a 3 year old, complete with stamping of feet and screaming?
Grow up.
Dude, its ships and modules. 99% of the drivel in here is people stamping their feet and screaming. |
Whitehound
838
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 10:06:00 -
[18] - Quote
sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? Why should anyone tell you?!
Shield tankers cannot fit modules like tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners and ECM jammers or just an ECCM. A single tracking disruptor with range disruption script reduces the DPS of projectile weapons by half! What is there left to tank?! To counter it do you need 2 TEs in the lows for what an armor tanker only needs a single mid-slot. Maybe you want us to tank your tears when a set of ECM drones are jamming you again... So the ASB needs to be better, because otherwise you could not fit MWD, web+scram, cap booster and still have a tank. Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
574
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 12:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!!
You show an example of what a terrible balance is, you know the 10% is getting a nerf stick to 7.5%.
And your example doesn't prove on anything armor tanking is balanced, very far from there, the only armor tanking that got a real good buff is buffer tanking = aka Amarr.
1v1 fights and lol duels incoming got buff? -hell yeah, awesome... *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
798
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 12:59:00 -
[20] - Quote
OP is forgetting that active tanking armour rigs are being changed by trading off speed penalty for repper's grid penalty, and armour reppers are getting their grid usage dropped to compensate. [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
574
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 13:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:OP is forgetting that active tanking armour rigs are being changed by trading off speed penalty for repper's grid penalty, and armour reppers are getting their grid usage dropped to compensate.
It's getting better? -yes
Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no
Before even introducing AARs old modules should have been balanced correctly: frigates/destroyers balance=small mods balance and so on so forth. Then add new modules to offer more options? -yes but those should not be mandatory, this is the problem I have with this current armor balancing method. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
798
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 14:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no
wait, isn't like, armour rig 1 pretty much mandatory already? and doesn't this sorta fix some of the armor rigs too? [img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Serptimis
The Fiction Factory Tribal Band
130
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 14:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no wait, isn't like, armour rig 1 pretty much mandatory already? and doesn't this sorta fix some of the armor rigs too? I think he means the honeycombing skill which reduces mass of plates, pretty much going to be a must have skill. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1997
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 15:04:00 -
[24] - Quote
What he means that old armor reppers are still as inefficient as before, so all new active armor fits will use the AARs - "mandatory" mod.
So how good it is then? Depends on the ship. On Incursus, looks sweet. Because SARs were already sweet, perfectly viable on frigates. Even on unbonused hulls.
LAAR on triple rep Hyperion and MAAR on triple rep Myrm look very sweet. Dual and MAAR+800mm plate fits on cruisers look very interesting.
But MAAR on dual rep fits on either Brutix or Myrm are still only as good as a single XLASB, because base level of medium armor reppers is not enough on BC class. Sigs are huge especially on these hulls (why, idk), and incoming damage much higher.
Maybe they should rename LARs to XLARs, and introduce BC-sized armor reppers, or then just buff the Gallente BC hull bonuses to 10%. There's the armor Cane, however, which would not benefit from touching only Gal hulls. Yeah I know crazy idea, that you could actually active tank something else than a Myrm or Prophecy!
And fix the broken ASB fittings.
My idea of tank balance:
Shield tanks: more damage, mobility, cap-free, less tank Armor tanks: less damage, mobility, cap-intensive, more tank, utility mid
Currently shields have more tank because of oversized mods. When the fittings are fixed, ASBs should be buffed slightly to remain competitive.
This is active tanking obv, on buffer side things are nicely balanced, especially with the 1.1 plate mass reductions.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Grimpak
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
799
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 15:46:00 -
[25] - Quote
Serptimis wrote:Grimpak wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Is this what armor tanking was in need? - more lol mods and skills to train = no wait, isn't like, armour rig 1 pretty much mandatory already? and doesn't this sorta fix some of the armor rigs too? I think he means the honeycombing skill which reduces mass of plates, pretty much going to be a must have skill. that I can agree.
[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]
[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
1037
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 16:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
ASB fittings are really only broken with the X-L variety.
MASB? I don't see it that much anymore. It only gets seven charges as there are no small navy cap charges. I would only put it on a ship with a shield resist or boost bonus.
LASB? Does anyone use these or do they skip to the X-L? |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 20:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!! You show an example of what a terrible balance is, you know the 10% is getting a nerf stick to 7.5%. And your example doesn't prove on anything armor tanking is balanced, very far from there, the only armor tanking that got a real good buff is buffer tanking = aka Amarr. 1v1 fights and lol duels incoming got buff? -hell yeah, awesome...
LOL
If you didn't get the sarcasm in my post you need to train your reading empathy skill to lvl 5 mate.
And if you think a single SAR incursus is an example of unbalanced armour tanking in small ships Then is suggest you have neither fought of flown them!
Armour tanking is fine and is getting better. Especially for medium/small ship classes. I generall don't comment on bigger classes cos I don't fly them often and real DGAF about them either.
Seriously just leave for even suggesting anything about 'duels' CCP just remade the can flip mechanic to siut crimewatch. I never mentioned 1v1 or any such crap. I rarely get them and often end up outgunned. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 20:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Taoist Dragon wrote:I love my armour incursus and LOL in local as my targets whine consistantly about thow they can't break my tank!! You show an example of what a terrible balance is, you know the 10% is getting a nerf stick to 7.5%. And your example doesn't prove on anything armor tanking is balanced, very far from there, the only armor tanking that got a real good buff is buffer tanking = aka Amarr. 1v1 fights and lol duels incoming got buff? -hell yeah, awesome... LOL If you didn't get the sarcasm in my post you need to train your reading empathy skill to lvl 5 mate. And if you think a single SAR incursus is an example of unbalanced armour tanking in small ships Then I suggest you have neither fought of flown them! Armour tanking is fine and is getting better. Especially for medium/small ship classes. I generall don't comment on bigger classes cos I don't fly them often and real DGAF about them either. Seriously just leave for even suggesting anything about 'duels' CCP just remade the can flip mechanic to siut crimewatch. I never mentioned 1v1 or any such crap. I rarely get them and often end up outgunned.
That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
104
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 21:04:00 -
[29] - Quote
So far I've seen 2 pages of weak arguments trying to say "Hey, don't bash on Armor tanking. It's good already... I mean, it's not Shield Tanking, but it's getting better"
So far, few have addressed my initial complaints (other than saying I should just get over it and quit whining)
- Shield ships can fit SEVERAL ASB, while Armor ships will be hard locked to using just 1 AAB. Again, CCP admits multiple ASB made shields very powerful. But rather than go back and hard lock ASB, they just pre-nerf AAB.
- Shield ASB are Capless, for no particular reason. Ordinary Shields Boosters aren't Capless, but they made a special exception. Ordinary Armor Reppers aren't Capless either, and CCP decided to "stick to their guns" in that regard.
- Shield ASB burn charges that cost as little as 400 ISK each. Armor AAB burn charges that cost 30,000 ISK each. I just went back and updated the OP, since I didn't factor the Paste costs right before. Maybe if people take a look at how expensive it is to run an AAB compared to an ASB... |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 21:13:00 -
[30] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:So far I've seen 2 pages of weak arguments trying to say "Hey, don't bash on Armor tanking. It's good already... I mean, it's not Shield Tanking, but it's getting better"
So far, few have addressed my initial complaints (other than saying I should just get over it and quit whining)
- Shield ships can fit SEVERAL ASB, while Armor ships will be hard locked to using just 1 AAB. Again, CCP admits multiple ASB made shields very powerful. But rather than go back and hard lock ASB, they just pre-nerf AAB.
- Shield ASB are Capless, for no particular reason. Ordinary Shields Boosters aren't Capless, but they made a special exception. Ordinary Armor Reppers aren't Capless either, and CCP decided to "stick to their guns" in that regard.
- Shield ASB burn charges that cost as little as 400 ISK each. Armor AAB burn charges that cost 30,000 ISK each. I just went back and updated the OP, since I didn't factor the Paste costs right before. Maybe if people take a look at how expensive it is to run an AAB compared to an ASB...
No there are two pages of people saying that shield tanking =/= armour tanking
And it shouldn't be the same! Stop comparing their modules directly with one another. This is the flaw in your arguments. A car is not a motorbike, 'yet it has wheel and drives on the road so it must be the same' is the argument that you are using.
From a game lore point of view shield use energy to repair or boost themselves so why wouldn't they use cap charges to provide a direct boost to shield in the same way they do the cap of a ship. Armour repairers use nanites to repair armour so why wouldn't they use it to give a direct boost to armour repairing modules. The cap usage is to provide the nanite energy to operate.
From a mechanic point of view the differences in resistances and how damage is applied to shields/armour has long been demonstrated by multiple ships having the same 'tank' either in terms of EHP buffer or passive regen or repair/boost yet one ship dies horribly and the other barely gets a scratch.
So just to be clear
Armour tanking =/= shield tanking stop trying to make them the same!
Giving a bike an extra wheel does not make it a car! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
|
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
104
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 21:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
I'm not sure if we're both playing the same video game, since you are going on about motorcycles and cars...
My game has spaceships...
And in it, those spaceships are already Shield biased, what with passive regen on everything.
Then you could say "Hey, I want faster Shield regen. So I'm going to go active tanked, burn Cap, and try to keep my shields going before my batteries run dry."
Only now, you can "active" tank passively. So triple ASB ships can be neuted all day long, and never suffer a loss in tank.
Or if you're feeling spunky about it, you could toss an ASB into your already passively tanked ship, and you have a fallback iWin button to refill your shields if they happen to get overwhelmed.
---
Now, you look at "passive" armor tanking, otherwise known as the waiting game. Who will run out of HP first?
So you say "Screw this, I want some sort of Armor regen. So I'm going to go active tanked, burn Cap, and try to keep my armor intact before my batteries run dry."
Only now... no wait, we don't get the passive shortcut. And we can't triple fit AAB, even if we were so inclined.
So if you're feeling spunky, and wanna toss an AAB in with several other run-of-the-mill reppers, you're still going to be burning through millions of ISK worth of Paste, and also expending tons of Cap Charges just like the ASB would. Only now you're sharing those Cap Charges to rep, guns, EW...
---
You are absolutely right however... Armor tanking =/= Shield tanking. And that's my point... |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 22:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
Ok you obviously don't understand the use of metaphors and really have no idea what you are talking about.
Triple ASB fit what?! the amount of cap charges that would require is just silly and you would NOT be able to tank 'all day'.
The tankiest thing I have engaged with ASB was dual ASB myrm. Took a while to kill as we were all in novice plex capable T1 frigs but guess what he died pretty easily just slowly because we couldn't bring the DPS to kill him quicker.
Neuting an ASB ship - now what can that do eh? Well it can shut down their weapons (for some reason people seem to forget that caldari have hybrids?!) kill off any hardners they may have fitted (which further gimps their fit), shut down any prop mod or point/scram.
Hmm this my friend is called tactics. If combat in eve is who can out tank/gank in a pure in your face brawl then I can see why you are coming to this conclusion. However it is pretty easy to shut down the actual combat capability of a multi ASB fit ship from BS down. Then all you have to do is chew through the shields and cap charges.....
ASB's are powerful yes. But then again so is a bomb. But guess what they are not all powerful.
You use the right tool for the right job adn it seems OP. Personally I haven't seen many multi ASB fits that down have major drawbacks in their combat capability. In the same way that the dual rep incursus is a total beast in some peoples eyes yet I love killing them cos they seriously gimp their fit to get max tank/gank (on paper at least)
So in regard to your OP.
NO devs are not shield biased they just don't want to make them the same. Get out there and try different tactics and get a different perspective on combat because tank/gank isn't the only factor.
And what is your point in saying armour =/= shield tanking?!? aren't you argueing by directly comparing their direct modules that operate in different ways? It's like arguing that walking diagonal across a road to walking directly across it depending on whether you need to move up or down the street?! That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
249
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 22:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Cap carges v nanite paste
CCP has already stated it will be looking at the requirements to manufacture it in relation to the supply/demand as time goes on.
paste has been a very limited use item in game and these changes may well increase it use a fair bit thus increasing the demand and people will make it. If it becomes a prohibitive maufactureing process then CCP will address that.
Really don't see why this is an argument for or against AAR tbh. Most pvp'er regularly carry lots around with them anyways. The same and cap heavy fits and charges. except that countering the cost is the much smaller cargo requirements to carry paste.
6 and 2 3's as far as I'm concerned and not a valid argument either way. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Marcus Gideon
Federal Defense Operations Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
105
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 22:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
You're fun Taoist, I like you =)
Real quick... metaphors only work, if they work. The difference isn't bikes vs cars. Its the difference between cars with Oompa Loompa's crawling all over, constantly bashing dings and dents out of the body work. Or a car that just magically gets better as it drives down the road.
You start neuting the Oompa Loompa's, they fall off, and pretty soon your car looks... Minmatar. You neut the magic car, and nothing really happens. It still gets shiny just by floating there.
You can't tell me people don't passive shield tank L5s, running the entire mission completely bone dry of Cap, firing off missiles (sure, Caldari ships -can- use hybrids... but nobody does) and running enough Purgers and SPR to live forever.
If you pitted 2 evenly matched ships against each other, and one guy is running ASBs, the tactic would be "wait for him to run out of charges". Now if the other guy were running AAB (or any armor rep), the tactic would be "neuts". End of story.
If you pitted 2 evenly matched, "passive" tanked ships against each other, the shield ship will win almost every time. Why? Because his tank refills over time effortlessly. The armor ship only has a surplus of buffer before he's dead.
As for the paste prices, yes I think a change in production would make things "a little" more even. But this AAB is still pretty disappointing. It's like someone said "Hey, Shields got a cool toy. Can we get something even remotely as cool?" and CCP said "Sure, we'll give you precisely that. Something remotely as cool."
Oh, and... what streets? We're in space =D |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
250
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 23:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
I like oompa loompas don't you dare neut my oompa loompas you cruel evil man you!
I won't comment on lvl 5's or such as pretty much the only pve content I've been involved in in the last 18months is exploration or FW button spinning.
True the AAR is still a cap dependent machanic but I think you may be looking at it the wrong way.
ASB is a silly high tank for a silly short time. Dependent on multi fits and large cargo items to make any form of sustainable (really for only a slightly longer time than before really) This also pretty much gimps the fits for combat variance and completely puts it in the tank/spank mode.
AAR give the armour tanker the option of using a module to give a bigger burst tank than the regular reppers but at a cost of nanite etc. I feel the AAR is something that you will fit on your current armour fit ships and not need to fit specifically around them.
I personally think that armour tanking is fine the way it was/is (some of the module penalties are directed at the wrong attribute imo i.e speed rather than agility). But I'm glad some of the penalties are changing. The big thing is the metagame that changes. I remember when if you didn't fly ahac you were pretty much excluded from a lot of fleets.
I feel that tanking in general doesn't scale well and the bigger you go the more tankingis unbalanced. But this may just be me as my experiance in the larger ships is very limited.
I think the bigger things for active armour tanking is the penalty changes and the AAR is kind like a new toy like you said. I like the new toy, it fits with the lore and also give the active armour tanker another option. I don't think active armour tanking will become FOTM with this like ASB's did. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
253
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 01:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
The big problem here is, and always has been that ASBs are overpowered as ****. For as long as I can remember even the people defending shield tanking would take the time to add a "(not counting ASBs of course)" to their posts, because the damn things were broken and everyone knew it. Now we seem to have forgotten that for some reason, and even worse now that armor is getting an 'ancillary' mod (in name only) people are acting like the problem is shields as a whole, and not the specific case of ASBs needing a solid nerfbat.
IMO the big reason that people hate the ASB is that it should have been an armor mod right from the beginning. Shield tanking has always traded cap efficiency for more raw repping power, so giving them the asb was the equivalent of giving armor tankers an XLAR or armor-invuln. It threw one of the main drawbacks to using shields in the first place out the window and left armor tankers hanging.
As to the whole armor vs shield debate, the way I've always seen the balance in active tanking is like this: Armor gets better passive mods vs shields active ones, and more efficient reppers vs more HP repped per mod because armor tanking is supposed to be less effective but less cap reliant. Trading burst tank for tank sustainability. They also trade speed for more ewar (and I say this rather than damage for ewar because the slower a ship is the more it needs to be able to disrupt/pin down other ships) and then we have a problem, because the other 2 differences, damage projection and signature radius, don't really balance out well.
Even if you want pair off damage vs ewar, you're still left with sig radius vs speed/agility, and it's still not a very fair tradeoff (and if it were MWDs would be mostly useless rather than almost mandatory).
In passive tanking this imbalance is taken care of, because armor has better buffer, meaning it tanks more but deals moves less, and the appeal of a brickish playstyle is fairly obvious. But in active tanking it loses this advantage and doesn't really gain anything in return, which is why active armor tanking is viewed by so many as being shite. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3070
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 02:48:00 -
[37] - Quote
Amusingly, I was in favor of it being switched to nanite expressly because I knew it to be more expensive. It acts as a great boost to PI. :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Abannan
Justified Chaos
71
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 04:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
As a primarily armour tanker in eve, I have a message to op. If you want to fly a ship that has the ability to fit a tank that tanks like a ship with an xl asb, fit a damn xl asb to it and stop complaining. |
Umega
Solis Mensa
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 06:01:00 -
[39] - Quote
Every ship should be equal. Every module. It's absolutely reasonable to think that null should hit the same distance as barrage.. and both do the same dmg.. with perfectly equal and inline dps curves that mirror scorch.
Tracking disrupt never-miss missiles. It's not fair.. logic need not apply.
Why does the belli have an extra high over a cele.. they both T1 ewar cruisers. It's not fair the cele has an extra low. Ruppie is minus a gun over the other 3 equivilants.. it's not fair its forced to a utlity high. That's not balanced.
Why do some non-droneboats have significantly greater dronebays and/or bandwidth than their equivilant counter parts. Something should be done about this. It's not fair or balanced.
DCU gives armor 15%, but shield 12.5%.. making each rep point worth more. This also gives remote repping armor an advantage over shield from that module. That's not fair.. or balanced. Not too mention.. both armor classes have better structure, again.. making the legendary DCU favor the mostly armor-favorable ships. And that extra structure ehp could result in more rep pulses, more remote pulses as well. But we should ignore that.. or even better, make it fair and balanced.
Their shouldn't be black n white, only one color. I'll be damned if CCP makes me jump on the FOTM bandwagon, just because of what other's say. I'm a complete tool, and a drone to what other people say rather than my own experinces fueled by own ideals.. I need the forums to dictate and tell me what is right or wrong, and fit accordingly.
I too.. wish to be a mindless lemming. My EVE experince made easier by having every choice, be the only choice, and thus.. always the right choice. I can't handle being wrong. No one can make fun of me for fitting an armor tank over a shield tank.. cause they both heal at the same rate per second.. so it doesn't matter.
I'm going to happily dry-hump the air when CCP takes all the decision making out of my hands.. and simply makes everything the same as everything else.
In all seriousness.. god forbid CCP devs listen to some of you people. Here's a nugget of truth.. You know what kills MMOs? Not so much the company.. but the whining drones of lemming ezmoders that want the Golden Key of Excellence handed to them on a silver platter.
What's about to happen to armor tanking ships in general is MASSIVE.. there is a subtle breeze about to hit like an F5 tornado, and I'm sorry.. but I'm amazed how many of you are too stupid to realize it. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1997
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 09:36:00 -
[40] - Quote
Well that was a bad post.
After you've done with boring us, maybe you can give some facts that would support your "breeze"? What is changing?
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Lashenadeeka
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 17:29:00 -
[41] - Quote
This seems as good a place as any to post this:
http://i.imgur.com/RoF5Aj4.jpg |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
575
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 23:43:00 -
[42] - Quote
Didn't recognized the signature, it's Rembrant or Picasso? *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam A Point In Space
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 00:38:00 -
[43] - Quote
If it bothers you that much train for Shield Tanking. The 2 systems are completely different from more than 1 perspective.
Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient. Base values for Armour are higher than they are for Shields Armour Tanking gets a Passive Omni-Resistance Module, Shield Tanking gets an Active Omni-Resistance Module
Finally Armour Tanking requires less SP.
Armour Tanking Skills Repair Systems (R1) Hull Upgrades (R2) Armour Resistance Phasing (R3) 4x [xyz] Armour Compensation (R2)
Total Ranks - 14 (3,584,000 Skill Points)
Shield Tanking Skills Shield Compensation (R2) Shield Management (R3) Shield Operation (R1) Shield Upgrades (R2) Tactical Shield Manipulation (R4) 4x [xyz] Shield Compensation (R2)
Total Skill Ranks - 20 (5,120,000 Skill Points) |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
268
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 01:12:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP totally hate armor they plan to remove it completely by the end of the year..op i hope u feel better. Leeloo Dallas Multipass - "Big bada boom"
http://i.imgur.com/1N37t.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rbmgtGx.jpg Ninja over Black-ops. |
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
187
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 03:40:00 -
[45] - Quote
To mare wrote:sabre906 wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:My one and only issue with the new Ancillary Armor Reppers is they will massively drive up demand for what is currently a somewhat uncommonly traded commodity. Nanite, which is already somewhat expensive, is going to become much more so very soon. You're assuming ppl will start using AARs. Why? because they are damn good especially with the other changes made to rigs and fitting requirements, still dont see the problem of seeing nanite paste price going to the roof
I'm guessing probably because you're planning to sell nanite instead of using it. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
243
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:23:00 -
[46] - Quote
This is good stuff ! What is "AR A" ? |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
579
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 15:57:00 -
[47] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:If it bothers you that much train for Shield Tanking. The 2 systems are completely different from more than 1 perspective.
Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient. Base values for Armour are higher than they are for Shields Armour Tanking gets a Passive Omni-Resistance Module, Shield Tanking gets an Active Omni-Resistance Module
Finally Armour Tanking requires less SP.
Armour Tanking Skills Repair Systems (R1) Hull Upgrades (R2) Armour Resistance Phasing (R3) 4x [xyz] Armour Compensation (R2)
Total Ranks - 14 (3,584,000 Skill Points)
Shield Tanking Skills Shield Compensation (R2) Shield Management (R3) Shield Operation (R1) Shield Upgrades (R2) Tactical Shield Manipulation (R4) 4x [xyz] Shield Compensation (R2)
Total Skill Ranks - 20 (5,120,000 Skill Points)
Tip 1
Train new character from scratch for Tengu with strategic skill 4 subs 5 support missile 5 HAMs and HMs spec 4 Tanking skills 5 if you get the feeling to passive tank your Tengu
Tip 2
Train another new character from scratch for Proteus with strategic skill 4 subs 5 support gunnery 5 Medium rails&blasters 4, tanking skills 5
Both intended for DPS roles, forget drones in both cases or your Proteus plan will skyrocket.
What happened in your Evemon plan?
*removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
133
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 19:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:This is good stuff ! What is "AR A" ?
I assumed it was a dead space A type rep.
I was trying to do something similar to compare against ASB may post it if I am sure it is right. |
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:03:00 -
[49] - Quote
It's more of a comparison between a VTOL and a regular helicopter, they both get the job done, but the vtol.is better in pretty much every way (besides armor passive tank) all that needs to happen is to remove the capacitor requirements for the AAR, make both vulnerable or immune to neuting, and a hard cap on how many can be fir for both or removed.
Simply as that. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
244
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 21:58:00 -
[50] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:It's more of a comparison between a VTOL and a regular helicopter, they both get the job done, but the vtol.is better in pretty much every way (besides armor passive tank) all that needs to happen is to remove the capacitor requirements for the AAR, make both vulnerable or immune to neuting, and a hard cap on how many can be fir for both or removed.
Simply as that. We don't need more neutra immune ships.
And armor ships can still use their mid slots. People not considering this as something useful is more related to EWAR being weak on unbonused ships than armor being bad in itself. |
|
Clara Stewart
Stewart Collections
11
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:17:00 -
[51] - Quote
Armor and Shield both have there own benefits and disadvantages and they always will, players will always argue 1 is better than the other. The real inbalance in Eve is Hull tanking for reasons-
Only 1 resist module (damage control)
We have no extender or plates to fit as such just the Reinforced bulkheads this module only really works well on larger ships even then it has a stacking bonus and kills your ships speed.
The repair modules have painful fitting requirments, slow cycle/rep amounts and they eat capacitor.
No Rigs
So you lot stop complaining and lets look at fixing Hull tanking please.
|
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
181
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 22:17:00 -
[52] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:Call me crazy, but I'm kinda getting the impression that CCP Devs really hate Armor.
You're crazy.
Quote:Like... really... hate... armor...
Really... crazy.
Quote:First off, whose idea was it to burn Paste? A rather rare and valuable Farmville Planetary Interaction commodity.
People asked for it. There were at least three threads in Features & Ideas Discussion before the devs announced the change.
Quote:Then add in the continued Cap draw. Justified as "we don't want armor tanking to be like shields"
And tack on "limited to one" just for extra oomph. Justified as "we saw how powerful that made ASBs, and rather than go fix ASB, we're going to pre-nerf AABs"
Active armor tanking is already highly cap efficient, so removing cap would be kinda redundant. However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is. |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam A Point In Space
578
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:20:00 -
[53] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Tip 1
pointless drivel post #1 Tip 2
pointless drivel post #2
whut ???
n.b. and yes, i paraphrased your post. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:24:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: Tip 1
pointless drivel post #1 Tip 2
pointless drivel post #2
whut ??? n.b. and yes, i paraphrased your post.
You won GD, you made my evening. Thx *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
583
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is.
That AAR needs to be coupled with a regular AR to offer the burst you need. 2 low slots +1mid for mandatory cap injector vs1 mid, it's huge trade off for little/none advantage (double lol rep) and completely nullified when you get to start talking about double ABS fits. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3076
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 23:29:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is. That AAR needs to be coupled with a regular AR to offer the burst you need. 2 low slots +1mid for mandatory cap injector vs1 mid, it's huge trade off for little/none advantage (double lol rep) and completely nullified when you get to start talking about double ABS fits.
Dual rep + Cap Booster doesn't tend to require 1-4 fitting mods as dual ASB does. Dual ASB also plays merry hell with your ewar and tackle. I think it's far too early to be doomsaying regarding armor vs shield.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Drake Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
25
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 01:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Drake Doe wrote:It's more of a comparison between a VTOL and a regular helicopter, they both get the job done, but the vtol.is better in pretty much every way (besides armor passive tank) all that needs to happen is to remove the capacitor requirements for the AAR, make both vulnerable or immune to neuting, and a hard cap on how many can be fir for both or removed.
Simply as that. We don't need more neutra immune ships. And armor ships can still use their mid slots. People not considering this as something useful is more related to EWAR being weak on unbonused ships than armor being bad in itself. So we don't need more ewar immune ships but ASBs shouldn't be made cap vulnerable? |
Ctzn Snips
Justified Chaos
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 02:57:00 -
[58] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:[quote=Caitlyn Tufy]However, what armor tanking lacks is burst repair - and that's exactly what AAB's purpose is. Dual ASB also plays merry hell with your ewar and tackle. I think it's far too early to be doomsaying regarding armor vs shield. -Liang
Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3081
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 03:08:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ctzn Snips wrote:Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots.
So.... dual rep incursus (SAAR, SAR) vs Merlin (MASB). Who wins?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
260
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 03:48:00 -
[60] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots. So.... dual rep incursus (SAAR, SAR) vs Merlin (MASB). Who wins? -Liang
Merlin as he just walks away if he can't mitigate the incursus' damage through range control.
hmm....I might actually start flying a dual rep incursus with a web rather than scram hmmm... That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
620
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 04:21:00 -
[61] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote:If it bothers you that much train for Shield Tanking. The 2 systems are completely different from more than 1 perspective.
Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient. Base values for Armour are higher than they are for Shields Armour Tanking gets a Passive Omni-Resistance Module, Shield Tanking gets an Active Omni-Resistance Module
Finally Armour Tanking requires less SP.
Armour Tanking Skills Repair Systems (R1) Hull Upgrades (R2) Armour Resistance Phasing (R3) 4x [xyz] Armour Compensation (R2)
Total Ranks - 14 (3,584,000 Skill Points)
Shield Tanking Skills Shield Compensation (R2) Shield Management (R3) Shield Operation (R1) Shield Upgrades (R2) Tactical Shield Manipulation (R4) 4x [xyz] Shield Compensation (R2)
Total Skill Ranks - 20 (5,120,000 Skill Points) You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.
Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.
Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.
The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2. |
Ctzn Snips
Justified Chaos
20
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 04:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
Kitty Bear wrote: "If you don't want to tank the bad way, train into the better way"
Armour Tanking is more Capacitor efficient.
Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
647
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 04:45:00 -
[63] - Quote
Honestly these armour vs shield threads are becoming tiring. We see the same one-sided arguments recycled over and over again. Every time it's a new person, and every time they think they're really clever and its a completely new idea.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.
Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.
Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.
The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2.
He also forgot Hull Upgrades under shield tanking. Damage Controls work quite well for shield tanks as well. And as long as we're talking about crossover skills, you can go ahead and add Mechanics to shields, and Shield Management/operation to armour tanking, since they all apply. Armour tanked ships have shields and shield tanked ships have hull and armour too, an extra few % can determine a fight.
Not to worry about those extra skills that shields have, we'll be getting some new armour skills real soon. A new skill to reduce the drawback of plates. I will be awaiting the shield skill to reduce the sig bloom of extenders. Armour already gets some stuff that shields don't. Repair Systems reduces the cycle time of reps, there is no shield equivalent. All four of the armour compensation skills are useful as well, the shield versions are all set to become mostly useless in the next patch (tonight?)
This may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but both tanking methods are viable. Shields are better at active tanking, and armour is better at buffer tanking. How is this still news to anyone?
Ctzn Snips wrote:Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
620
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 04:53:00 -
[64] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Honestly these armour vs shield threads are becoming tiring. We see the same one-sided arguments recycled over and over again. Every time it's a new person, and every time they think they're really clever and its a completely new idea. Tyberius Franklin wrote:You forgot to include the mechanic skill under armor.
Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all.
Lastly shield T2 mods seem to have fewer lvl 5 skill prerequisites than armor mods as a whole.
The training may be longer to complete but provides a greater range of utility over armor skills helping balance the 2. He also forgot Hull Upgrades under shield tanking. Damage Controls work quite well for shield tanks as well. And as long as we're talking about crossover skills, you can go ahead and add Mechanics to shields, and Shield Management/operation to armour tanking, since they all apply. Armour tanked ships have shields and shield tanked ships have hull and armour too, an extra few % can determine a fight. Not to worry about those extra skills that shields have, we'll be getting some new armour skills real soon. A new skill to reduce the drawback of plates. I will be awaiting the shield skill to reduce the sig bloom of extenders. Armour already gets some stuff that shields don't. Repair Systems reduces the cycle time of reps, there is no shield equivalent. All four of the armour compensation skills are useful as well, the shield versions are all set to become mostly useless in the next patch (tonight?) Enhanced utility with longer training. Still seems balanced, though partially with what one would choose to train afterwards rather than what one may have trained before. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3083
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 05:08:00 -
[65] - Quote
Taoist Dragon wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Good thing upping the size and using only one is a completely viable option when it doesn't cost any cap. And ships designed for using shields aren't exactly lacking in mid slots. So.... dual rep incursus (SAAR, SAR) vs Merlin (MASB). Who wins? -Liang Merlin as he just walks away if he can't mitigate the incursus' damage through range control. hmm....I might actually start flying a dual rep incursus with a web rather than scram hmmm...
Neat trick given the fact the Incursus is faster than the Merlin.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Gitanmaxx
Viziam Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 05:30:00 -
[66] - Quote
I don't think it's some intentional hate against armor tanking. I also like the concept of this module. But it's biffed in my opinion. The cap use, the type of charges, the amount it reps. Something there really needs to change and it could go from complete fail to a really cool and unique module. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3083
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 05:49:00 -
[67] - Quote
What's wrong with the type of charges? They're small and compact.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
culo duro
Federal Enslavement
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 07:47:00 -
[68] - Quote
Gitanmaxx wrote:I don't think it's some intentional hate against armor tanking. I also like the concept of this module. But it's biffed in my opinion. The cap use, the type of charges, the amount it reps. Something there really needs to change and it could go from complete fail to a really cool and unique module.
What really ruins it for me is that i can't have more than one on any ship. |
Heavieth
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 11:51:00 -
[69] - Quote
I want to say there is a solution to all changes in eve that I learned a long time ago. If you want to keep your edge then you need to train all races. I started training multiple races after the huge missile nerf bat around 2006.
If you fly cruisers train for all the race cruisers ect.
Then you have it all ;-P |
Ctzn Snips
Justified Chaos
21
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 16:32:00 -
[70] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about?
Tell me more about these PVP fits that use Shield Boosters over ASBs. |
|
Gitanmaxx
Viziam Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 19:52:00 -
[71] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:What's wrong with the type of charges? They're small and compact.
-Liang
and cost a small fortune. maybe not a problem for multi-billionaire. but i'm new to pvp so if i use this module i'll go broke very very quickly from losing ships with paste in them. look at the cost of this vs the cost of the caps used by the asb.
I can understand people defending the concept of this module, even thinking OPs like the one here are going way overboard into silliness.....but anyone arguing that this module isn't worse in every way to an asb is just trying to be contentious for the sake of wanting to argue. Any logical objective view of this module has to realize something isn't quite right with it and needs adjustment. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
256
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 20:52:00 -
[72] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about? 2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent
The argument for better cap efficiency for armor goes out the window once SBAs are factored in, and that's not even counting the cap-free ASBs.
EDIT:
Liang Nuren wrote: Ed: This kinda gets back to what I've been saying. The rig changes are a really big deal. Way bigger than anyone gives them credit for.
A million times this. I can think of 2 armor ships off the top of my head that went from being useless to being pretty decent because of that change. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3137
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 21:37:00 -
[73] - Quote
Gitanmaxx wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:What's wrong with the type of charges? They're small and compact.
-Liang and cost a small fortune. maybe not a problem for multi-billionaire. but i'm new to pvp so if i use this module i'll go broke very very quickly from losing ships with paste in them. look at the cost of this vs the cost of the caps used by the asb. I can understand people defending the concept of this module, even thinking OPs like the one here are going way overboard into silliness.....but anyone arguing that this module isn't worse in every way to an asb is just trying to be contentious for the sake of wanting to argue. Any logical objective view of this module has to realize something isn't quite right with it and needs adjustment.
Two things: - The XL ASB cost almost 2.5 million ISK to reload when it was released. - Everyone said the ASB was 100% useless when it was released because of the reload time. - The cost of nanite repair paste will go down over time when the speculation bubble eases up. - There is no requirement for equivalency between the AAR and ASB. - There is no requirement for equivalency between armor and shield tanking. - We haven't given the new armor tanking changes (all of them, not just AAR) enough of a shake for people to develop a meta.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3137
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 21:38:00 -
[74] - Quote
Cambarus wrote: 2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent
2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 21:58:00 -
[75] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote: 2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent
2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison. -Liang Ok then throw a rig of your choice in on the shield side.
And, of course, we have not yet factored in the fitting costs of the above modules to the typical fitting space on the relevant ships. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3138
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:04:00 -
[76] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote: 2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent
2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison. -Liang Ok then throw a rig of your choice in on the shield side. And, of course, we have not yet factored in the fitting costs of the above modules to the typical fitting space on the relevant ships.
You already burned your extra slot on the SBA.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
257
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:22:00 -
[77] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote: 2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent
2 LAR + Aux Nano Pump vs XLXB+ SBA is a better comparison. -Liang With the rig added it's 2.3 units repped/cap (so only ~1.7% better cap efficiency) . That's only just barely better than the shield booster and requires a third slot. Tossing in a cap rig for shields brings it up to 2.5 reps/cap, which is still better.
The armor reps bring in 163.5 hp/s, and the shield booster brings in 163.2, despite the armor rig being for repping power and the shield one being for cap use only.
Not that I'm advocating the use of cap rigs on shields, but it's still worth noting that 2 LARs + a rig give 1.7% better cap efficiency and 0.2% increased repping power over a XLSB + a SBA, whereas pretty much any of the shield rigs will give you more bang for your buck if you're trying to keep the slots even.
Liang Nuren wrote: You already burned your extra slot on the SBA. -Liang
I don't think we're using the same numbers here. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3138
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:37:00 -
[78] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:I don't think we're using the same numbers here.
It's pretty much always been accepted that 2 LAR is roughly equivalent to 1 XLSB. Trying to claim there should be parity between XLSB + SBA vs 2 LAR is ridiculous and you should know better. 2 LAR vs 1 XLSB or 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA. But 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA+Cap Rig is just... well, stupid.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
653
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:50:00 -
[79] - Quote
Oh, we're comparing EXTRA LARGE shield booster versus only the large repper? Are we doing this again? Because it was dumb the first time too.
Try your numbers again using a LARGE SB + SBA vs 2x LARs |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
110
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 23:26:00 -
[80] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Also it's worth noting that 3 of the shield skills have functions that aren't replicated with armor mechanics and skills. For instance passive shield regen rate, fitting cost of certain mods and cap/HP efficiency are things which shield tankers can modify through skills, while armor takers cannot do the latter 2 and the former doesn't apply at all..
passive regen on non "bonused" (as in the they lack a natural ship value that is high) ships does not work as well as you think it does. this is not instant shield hp rebound. Even on a drake, NH, or rattler which have this better ship stat. this all a shield tanker has post fight. Unless pvp has changed that much, when I did it out of say 15 peeps you could find a few peeps with rr in a utility high. Shield transfers packed jsut in case?....cricket, cricket, cricket.
Shield upgrade is needed to get max ehp on the boat. SE, unlike plates has high meta that fits easier but does not have max hp boost of the t2 SE. Armour as you know has been RT plate for years as for the longest time ccp made t2 not even worth considering fitting. Also worth noting the SU 5 is a mildly pita train to fit t2 SE on any frig or some cruisers.
cap/hp efficiency, again, you are thinking too much of this ability. Until the advent of ASB you if you flew shield tankers you learned quick why it was jsut slap on SE and call it a day. Also keep in mind your SOP omni tank for shield tank means 1 invul II, and usually 1 EM II (caldari anyway...nice em hole there). Active hards for more cap use. Now your armour omni....you slap on the EANM and a 2nd type resist of choice. I dream of the day shield gets a passive all in one resist like eanm. then it be one less mouth to feed and then you can whine about cap efficiency all you want.
|
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
257
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 02:43:00 -
[81] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote:I don't think we're using the same numbers here. It's pretty much always been accepted that 2 LAR is roughly equivalent to 1 XLSB. Trying to claim there should be parity between XLSB + SBA vs 2 LAR is ridiculous and you should know better. 2 LAR vs 1 XLSB or 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA. But 2 LAR+Aux Nano vs XLSB+SBA+Cap Rig is just... well, stupid. -Liang That's arguably the biggest problem with armor tanks tbh.
Paikis wrote:You are comparing an EXTRA large module against a large. (Hint: try using large modules, not extra large) You are comparing base stats. (Hint: you need to factor in skills) You are comparing a handful of modules and complaining that things are out of balance (Hint: What about resists? What about speed and sig radius?)
1)Those numbers were with skills.
2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
656
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 03:02:00 -
[82] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them.
That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all.
I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support.
Thank you. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 03:39:00 -
[83] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Cambarus wrote:2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them. That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all. I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support. Thank you. Now you're just being a tool.
Liang, I was referring to two modules plus a rig being compared to 2 modules only, and asking you to fit a rig either for shield boosting or cap to balance out both sides of the equation.
Also, you did not address my question as to comparing the cost to what else a ship can fit with two LAR II and a rig that will have a drawback as against the fitting costs of an XLSB and a SBA. Downgrading of guns is often the result.
But I'm not here to play but but shield is better for blah blah reason no armor is better blah bla as Paikis appears to be. What I am pointing out is that shield not only is as cap efficient it also boosts more. If Paikis wants to complain about 1600s as against LSEs, then he will surely do the same as he asks of Cambarus and support armor regen, remote and local reps that land at the beginning of the cycle, etc. and we can be here all night. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 04:02:00 -
[84] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Cambarus wrote:2)There IS no xl armor repper. As long as it's possible, easy even to fit XL mods on BSs (and BCs ) they will be fair game to compare with LARs. Compare mods by what they do and what ships can use them, not by some arbitrary naming scheme ccp used when making them. That being the case, the 1600mm plate has about twice as many extra hitpoints as it should. I mean as long as 1600mm plates are easy to fit to cruisers, and we're not comparing the Large Shield Extender to the 800mm plate and all. I'd like to request that the 1600mm plate be nerfed by 50%, and Cambarus is clearly in support. Thank you. The balance in buffer tanking lies in the fact that shields allow for greater mobility and damage projection and give up ewar abilities and raw tank. In active tanking armor loses the raw tanking advantage, and gains nothing in return. |
Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
492
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 04:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
All cap fleets in the game are armor tanked.
Yet you never see a shield cap pilot whining about it.
Armor is fine. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
657
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 04:50:00 -
[86] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Now you're just being a tool.
Oh no! He used the exact argument I did but it's not in my favour this time! Quick, call him names and hope that no one notices! |
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
958
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:13:00 -
[87] - Quote
Worst part is AAR using nano paste.
Let's see... ASB? Cap boosters. Mine in hisec for an hour, BPO yourself a thousand cap boosters.
Want nanopaste? Go find the right planet and max your PI skills, you might get hundred or so after a few days.
Fun! EvE Forum Bingo |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2043
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:27:00 -
[88] - Quote
Paikis wrote:You are comparing an EXTRA large module against a large. (Hint: try using large modules, not extra large) You are comparing base stats. (Hint: you need to factor in skills) You are comparing a handful of modules and complaining that things are out of balance (Hint: What about resists? What about speed and sig radius?)
Are we doing this again? Because it was dumb the first time too.
Try your numbers again using a LARGE SB + SBA vs 2x LARs and some actual skill points. And then try to realise that 3 modules are not the entirety of balance.
But you really are a tool. LAR is the largest armor module, XL largest shield module. You are right, tho, medium shield modules are equal to large armor mods.
Quote:Then, here's some more things you need to think about: You cannot just take tank into account. How much more damage does the ship with less tank get? Is it more vulnerable to being neuted? Is it faster or slower? Do it's guns need to be reloaded. Is its damage restricted to one or two damage types only? Can you reduce its damage to almost nothing through manual piloting? Does it have less tank/second but higher resistances, making it a better remote rep gang member?
Cool, lets do this.
- the ship with less tank gets less damage as dmg mods go to low slots - yes it is more vulnerable to being neuted, using cap for guns and tank and being married to MWD - yes it is slower - guns need to be reloaded - yes damage is restricted to two damage types - yes you can easily reduce it's damage to nothing through manual piloting - yes it has less tank and resistances
Quote:There are so many things you need to factor in when talking about this, that I find anyone trying to tell me that it is unbalanced or unfair to be extremely arrogant. Did you think about all of that above? What about the bits I didn't type out? What happens when you take officer or deadspace mods into account?
Good point, shield deadspace and officer mods are several magnitudes better than armor mods.
By the way, there is no 2xLAR tank in this game, it is always 2xLAR+Heavy cap booster.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
657
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 07:47:00 -
[89] - Quote
Your tears are delicious :) |
Juan Andalusian
Bastion 437
100
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 08:37:00 -
[90] - Quote
Paikis there is a village somewhere in Mongolia that's missing it's fool. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2044
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 08:56:00 -
[91] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Your tears are delicious :)
You are so naive.
This is not about our tears, this is about the imbalance of tanks in EVE. Retribution 1.1 took a big step in the right direction by fixing the speed issue of active armor and helped a lot with fitting armor reppers, and even touched the mobility of buffer tanks a bit. (Personally I think armor buffer fits should remain bricks, they do have superior EHP and no problems with midslots)
However what it did not fix is the actual repping amount, cycle time and when reps happen, and the two-sided issue with capacitor. T2 medium and large armor reps still rep too little, too late and use too much cap not only in comparison to shield tank, but in comparison to what is needed in modern EVE, both in PVE and PVP.
This is the problem we have.
AARs have their value on certain ships, it needs to be seen as a mass-penalty free extension of plate. I just hope it's introduction does not mean that the underlying problems of normal armor repairers are left untouched.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
185
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 16:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
What Paikis is saying is - shield has a larger booster, armor has a larger buffer and better resists. Saying armor tanking is worse because the reppers are smaller is equal to saying that shields are worse because 1600mm pates exist - it just doesn't hold water. Tldr, armor is fine.
Roime wrote:AARs have their value on certain ships, it needs to be seen as a mass-penalty free extension of plate.
Which is exactly what ASBs are for shield tanks. Seems CCP hit it just right :)
P.s.: nano paste reps were demanded by players, the original iteration had cap boosters. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3147
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 18:26:00 -
[93] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: Liang, I was referring to two modules plus a rig being compared to 2 modules only, and asking you to fit a rig either for shield boosting or cap to balance out both sides of the equation.
Also, you did not address my question as to comparing the cost to what else a ship can fit with two LAR II and a rig that will have a drawback as against the fitting costs of an XLSB and a SBA. Downgrading of guns is often the result.
But I'm not here to play but but shield is better for blah blah reason no armor is better blah bla as Paikis appears to be. What I am pointing out is that shield not only is as cap efficient it also boosts more. If Paikis wants to complain about 1600s as against LSEs, then he will surely do the same as he asks of Cambarus and support armor regen, remote and local reps that land at the beginning of the cycle, etc. and we can be here all night.
I know what you were referring to, but it was still fallacious. It is absolutely fallacious to compare an XL SB + SBA to 2 LAR, or to compare 1 LAR to an XL SB. This is you wanting module parity instead of game balance - because there is quite a big difference between the two.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3147
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 18:27:00 -
[94] - Quote
Cambarus wrote: The balance in buffer tanking lies in the fact that shields allow for greater mobility and damage projection and give up ewar abilities and raw tank. In active tanking armor loses the raw tanking advantage, and gains nothing in return.
You gain the use of your mid slots for ewar and tackle instead of for your tank. That is only "nothing" if you imagine eve PVP as sieged dreads shooting each other.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3147
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 18:30:00 -
[95] - Quote
Katran Luftschreck wrote:Worst part is AAR using nano paste.
Let's see... ASB? Cap boosters. Mine in hisec for an hour, BPO yourself a thousand cap boosters.
Want nanopaste? Go find the right planet and max your PI skills, you might get hundred or so after a few days.
Fun!
More accurately:
ASB? Cap boosters. Mine in high sec for an hour, BPO yourself a thousand cap boosters. Go run FW missions and FW plexes for a few days. Go run some real missions to get some actual ISK to convert your LP with. Convert your LP. Now haul your cap boosters to where you need them.
AAR? Nanopaste. Go find the right planet and make nanites from scratch.
And even more accurately: ASB? Right click, buy navy cap boosters. Contract black frog freight to take the cap boosters where you need them. AAR? Right click, buy nano paste. Undock in a covops and take nanite paste where you need it.
It's almost like the people who were asking for nanite repair paste knew that cargo space was going to be a major issue. /gasp
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3147
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 18:32:00 -
[96] - Quote
Roime wrote:Paikis wrote:Your tears are delicious :) You are so naive. This is not about our tears, this is about the imbalance of tanks in EVE. Retribution 1.1 took a big step in the right direction by fixing the speed issue of active armor and helped a lot with fitting armor reppers, and even touched the mobility of buffer tanks a bit. (Personally I think armor buffer fits should remain bricks, they do have superior EHP and no problems with midslots) However what it did not fix is the actual repping amount, cycle time and when reps happen, and the two-sided issue with capacitor. T2 medium and large armor reps still rep too little, too late and use too much cap not only in comparison to shield tank, but in comparison to what is needed in modern EVE, both in PVE and PVP. This is the problem we have. AARs have their value on certain ships, it needs to be seen as a mass-penalty free extension of plate. I just hope it's introduction does not mean that the underlying problems of normal armor repairers are left untouched.
There's more to game balance than making sure there is exact parity between tanking styles. When was the last time you saw a shield tanked Cane with MWD, Disruptor, and dual web? Oh wait, it's almost like making the trade off to armor tanking has trade offs beyond tanking. Snap.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 22:20:00 -
[97] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Deacon Abox wrote: Liang, I was referring to two modules plus a rig being compared to 2 modules only, and asking you to fit a rig either for shield boosting or cap to balance out both sides of the equation.
Also, you did not address my question as to comparing the cost to what else a ship can fit with two LAR II and a rig that will have a drawback as against the fitting costs of an XLSB and a SBA. Downgrading of guns is often the result.
But I'm not here to play but but shield is better for blah blah reason no armor is better blah bla as Paikis appears to be. What I am pointing out is that shield not only is as cap efficient it also boosts more. If Paikis wants to complain about 1600s as against LSEs, then he will surely do the same as he asks of Cambarus and support armor regen, remote and local reps that land at the beginning of the cycle, etc. and we can be here all night.
I know what you were referring to, but it was still fallacious. It is absolutely fallacious to compare an XL SB + SBA to 2 LAR, or to compare 1 LAR to an XL SB. This is you wanting module parity instead of game balance - because there is quite a big difference between the two. -Liang Apparently, because it wasn't addressed specifically to you, you missed my counter arguement to that which you just posted, here at https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2646742#post2646742
So no, it is not fallacious. The fitting cost of two LAR forces some more harsher choices on other parts of the ship than does an XLSB and SBA. The two in isolation are using two slots. And to say as you did that one side of the equation should have a rig added but not the other is wrong. Also, to argue with Cambarus that the shield tank negates the opportunity to fit multiple tackle mods is also to ignore the armor tank conflicting with damage mods. Around and around around it goes . . . |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3150
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 22:29:00 -
[98] - Quote
No, I didn't miss your post. In fact, I was responding to it. So let me reiterate my post, and perhaps expound upon it:
I know what you were referring to, but it was still fallacious. It is absolutely fallacious to compare an XL SB + SBA to 2 LAR, or to compare 1 LAR to an XL SB. This is you wanting module parity instead of game balance - because there is quite a big difference between the two. The thing you are effectively complaining about is the fact that armor tanking and shield tanking are not exactly the same.
A standard armor tank is 2 reps, not 1 as you have with shields.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
245
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 22:36:00 -
[99] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Apparently, because it wasn't addressed specifically to you, you missed my counter arguement to that which you just posted. It would be fallacious to compare one LAR to an XLSB, but then I didn't do that. Red Herring. It is not fallacious to compare 2 LAR to XLSB + SBA. This is two modules per each ship.
So no, it is not fallacious. The fitting cost of two LAR forces some more harsher choices on other parts of the ship than does an XLSB and SBA. The two in isolation are using two slots. And to say as you did that one side of the equation should have a rig added but not the other is wrong.
Also, to argue with Cambarus that the shield tank negates the opportunity to fit multiple tackle mods is also to ignore the armor tank conflicting with damage mods. Around and around around it goes . . . Count the number of ships with 6 mid slots ; then, count the number of ships with 6 low slots ; then, do the same with the number 7 instead of 6.
When its done, conclude.
After that, only to be sure, remove 2 mid slot, and 1 low slot (prop + tackle + DCU), and compare. Remember that it is easier to discard damage modules than prop or tackle. With no damage module, you can still do damage ; with no prop, you are dead ; and with no tackle, your target is alive.
Basic math, really, and you should find that no T1 ship have more than 4 mid slot to shield tank, 5 if discarding the tackle, versus a *lot* of ships having 5 or more low slot for armor tank.
Finaly, conclude that 2 mid slot are not equal to 2 low slots.
:-) |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 22:36:00 -
[100] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: A standard armor tank is 2 reps, not 1 as you have with shields.
-Liang No, a standard active shield tank is a shield booster and a shield boost amp, or lol, two ASBs. A standard active armor tank has been two or even three armor reppers with undersized guns. Soon to be an AAR + normal AR, maybe no longer necessitating undersized guns but probably lowest tier guns, if anyone really bothers.
To say that one side of the equation should have a rig to go with the two modules but not the other, is to make it not an equation.
|
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 22:48:00 -
[101] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Count the number of ships with 6 mid slots ; then, count the number of ships with 6 low slots ; then, do the same with the number 7 instead of 6.
When its done, conclude.
After that, only to be sure, remove 2 mid slot, and 1 low slot (prop + tackle + DCU), and compare. Remember that it is easier to discard damage modules than prop or tackle. With no damage module, you can still do damage ; with no prop, you are dead ; and with no tackle, your target is alive.
Basic math, really, and you should find that no T1 ship have more than 4 mid slot to shield tank, 5 if discarding the tackle, versus a *lot* of ships having 5 or more low slot for armor tank.
Finaly, conclude that 2 mid slot are not equal to 2 low slots.
:-) The shield tank has the luxury to fit some mobility mods or rigs. It doesn't need to fill its mids with tackle mods beyond a warp disruptor. Kitey kitey. Again we can go round and round on this. I'm not as straw man Liang wants to say arguing for an exact parity or to have homogenize the game. The tank modalities do and should have differences.
I am however someone who believes that shield has been getting too much preference for too long at least at the sub cap level. ASBs will still kick ass over AARs. The RAH was/is relatively worthless unless on capitals. Maybe the rig penalty changes on active armor repping will make them viable is some limited situations.
But I fly minmatar and gallente ships. I have no plans to fly an active repping Brutix or Myrm, and I fully expect to be turned away/disuaded by FCs from bringing sub par plated or shield versions of those ships. I will probably find more acceptance with shield buffer or plated Canes. Thankfully though in FW mostly we fly sub BC so less to worry about. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3150
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 22:52:00 -
[102] - Quote
What? No, the "Standard" shield tank does not have a SBA. That's absolutely ludicrous. 2 "oversized" ASBs, 1-4 fitting mods, and undersized guns I could see though. Again, the standard tank comparison has always (correctly) been 2 reps vs 1 "oversized" shield booster.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3150
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 23:02:00 -
[103] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: The shield tank has the luxury to fit some mobility mods or rigs. It doesn't need to fill its mids with tackle mods beyond a warp disruptor. Kitey kitey. Again we can go round and round on this. I'm not as straw man Liang wants to say arguing for an exact parity or to have homogenize the game. The tank modalities do and should have differences.
I am however someone who believes that shield has been getting too much preference for too long at least at the sub cap level. ASBs will still kick ass over AARs. The RAH was/is relatively worthless unless on capitals. Maybe the rig penalty changes on active armor repping will make them viable is some limited situations.
But I fly minmatar and gallente ships. I have no plans to fly an active repping Brutix or Myrm, and I fully expect to be turned away/disuaded by FCs from bringing sub par plated or shield versions of those ships. I will probably find more acceptance with shield buffer or plated Canes. Thankfully though in FW mostly we fly sub BC so less to worry about.
The simple fact of the matter is that low slots are more prevalent than mid slots and active armor tanking generally requires 2 reps against shield tanking's one booster. Shield tanking gets to spend slots on mobility and damage while having inferior tackle. Armor tanking gets to spend slots on tackle and ewar.
I will more than happily grant that armor tanking has historically been substandard. Hell, I was one of the absolute earliest voices telling everyone that shield tanking was almost universally better than armor tanking. But right now we just haven't had enough time to even evaluate the meta changes and you're whining that you need absolute module parity or armor tanking is useless.
You're wrong.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 23:06:00 -
[104] - Quote
We just aren't going to agree or concede.
But tell me that the AAR hasn't come prenerfed, just like the RAH did. While the ASB came op. And even after the nerf to ASBs, and the attempt to buff RAH, the armor side is still sitting behind.
I don't foresee a dissapearance of the Drake doctrine(s). The only thing that may change is that Prophecys may now compete as the non-drake BC for fleet usage where as it may have been the Cane before.
The rest of the BCs will not become a fleet ship. Well except maybe the Ferox (resist bonuses uber alles). And the solo/very small gang ASB Cyclone will be seen more than any solo/very small gang MAAR Brutix or Myrm. The Harby I don't know, it's such a brick now. All this is excepting the tier 3s slated for their own rightful nerf.
Also screw BCs anyway. I think we can agree maybe that HACs need something. AHACs are fine up to a certain size fleet but collectively HACs need help. And tech II in general is too costly atm with technetium monopoly etc.
Armor in general is disadvantaged. Eventually they may find a sweet spot through continuing small buffs to it and small nerfs to shields. But we aren't there yet. Hopefully as well they won't make any further mistakes like ASBs.
edit - and no I am not whining for absolute parity. that is your straw man |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3150
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 23:10:00 -
[105] - Quote
Yes, the ASB came in overpowered (you may remember me leading the charge on that one?). Yes, the RAH came in underpowered and pre-nerfed (though it's a lot better than it used to be now). However, I don't think we know whether the AAR came in prenerfed or not. I've already pulled the deadspace reps off of most of my ships and put AARs in place. The results are staggering: 50-80% improvements in tank with less fitting requirements. On top of that, they're almost all significantly faster than they were. And these ships were already good.
Honestly, I think you're just trying to metagame a period of ASB level overpoweredness. We just don't ******* KNOW whether the module is fine yet.
-Liang
Ed: Honestly what I think is going to happen is people like you are going to QQ it up like little bitches and then we'll wake up one day and you'll be a ****** for not fitting a large AAR to your carrier. Whoops, what happened? Oh, we weren't satisfied until it was blatantly ******* undeniable that armor was so overpowered as to make all other everythings completely and utterly irrelevant.
Stop the whining, evaluate the changes. In game. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 23:24:00 -
[106] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Yes, the ASB came in overpowered (you may remember me leading the charge on that one?). Yes, the RAH came in underpowered and pre-nerfed (though it's a lot better than it used to be now). However, I don't think we know whether the AAR came in prenerfed or not. I've already pulled the deadspace reps off of most of my ships and put AARs in place. The results are staggering: 50-80% improvements in tank with less fitting requirements. On top of that, they're almost all significantly faster than they were. And these ships were already good.
Honestly, I think you're just trying to metagame a period of ASB level overpoweredness. We just don't ******* KNOW whether the module is fine yet.
-Liang
Ed: Honestly what I think is going to happen is people like you are going to QQ it up like little bitches and then we'll wake up one day and you'll be a ****** for not fitting a large AAR to your carrier. Whoops, what happened? Oh, we weren't satisfied until it was blatantly ******* undeniable that armor was so overpowered as to make all other everythings completely and utterly irrelevant.
Stop the whining, evaluate the changes. In game.
You know, I don't think I've called you a *****. Please don't call me one. Thanks.
And I'm not qq-ing. I've been in eve a little longer than you have. Gotta love multiple accounts :S I'll be here unless I go bankrupt or my girlfriend says it's my sweet thing or EVE. Anyway, I will keep on posting, never stop posting.
The only thing I will conced to you is that yes, the pendulum could swing too far. Afterall in the past plated BS was it or nothing. Eve is a complex game and it can take time for the effect of changes to settle out. But I really do not see the current changes as bringing equivalency. So much in the game favors mobility, range, or burst tanking all of which shield allows and armor struggles with. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3151
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:02:00 -
[107] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:And I'm not qq-ing. I've been in eve a little longer than you have. Gotta love multiple accounts :S I'll be here unless I go bankrupt or my girlfriend says it's my sweet thing or EVE. Anyway, I will keep on posting, never stop posting. The only thing I will conced to you is that yes, the pendulum could swing too far. Afterall in the past plated BS was it or nothing. Eve is a complex game and it can take time for the effect of changes to settle out. But I really do not see the current changes as bringing equivalency. So much in the game favors mobility, range, or burst tanking all of which shield allows and armor struggles with.
I love how you say you have multiple accounts and then say you've been in the game longer than me.... completely neglecting the fact that I too am likely to have multiple accounts. /facepalm At any rate, since you've been in the game so long: do you remember how everyone knew the Drake was bad? And everyone knew shield tanking was bad? And everyone knew X or Y or Z? And none of that was actually true?
Consider the release of the ASB. Everyone knew that active tanking was completely useless. Knew it with dead certainty. And everyone knew the ASB was underpowered and useless because of the 60 second reload timer. Oh, how everyone thought it game into the game prenerfed. But, it was actually SO POWERFUL that it ushered in a new age of active tanking. And now, even nerfed, it forms the cornerstone of your argument for why shields are better than armor.
So, what do we get from this? The fact that the Eve player base must be SMACKED IN THE FACE with a brick in order to wake up and notice that the old status quo isn't there anymore. This armor change *feels* underwhelming to people who long for capless dual XL AARs on a cruiser. And maybe - maybe - it really is underwhelming. But we'll never know until we freaking try it out.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
260
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:28:00 -
[108] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Cambarus wrote: The balance in buffer tanking lies in the fact that shields allow for greater mobility and damage projection and give up ewar abilities and raw tank. In active tanking armor loses the raw tanking advantage, and gains nothing in return.
You gain the use of your mid slots for ewar and tackle instead of for your tank. That is only "nothing" if you imagine eve PVP as sieged dreads shooting each other. -Liang You're either being deliberately dense, or implying that I was. For buffer tanking, armor gets more tank, and more ewar/tackle. Shields get more damage and mobility.
When you look at active tanking, armor loses this raw tank advantage. We now have more damage, tank, and mobility on the shield side, versus better ewar/tackle on the armor side. Armor loses an advantage that it had on the buffer side but gains no new advantages, and therein lies the main problem, and why so few ships can be flown with active armor tanks while so many work with shields (here's looking at you, myrmidon)
EDIT: And one more little nit to pick: Did people really think the ASB was bad when it was released? I remember seeing that and drooling at the stats, even with the reload time... |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
44
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:58:00 -
[109] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: do you remember how everyone knew the Drake was bad? And everyone knew shield tanking was bad? And everyone knew X or Y or Z? And none of that was actually true? The drake was only considered bad for pvp because for a while retards were showing up for fleets with sprs and purger rigs expecting to tank a pvp fleet as they did a pve room. Shield tanking was only considered bad because sniper Ravens and large rail Rokhs were either delayed damage or weak, and Maelstroms had not yet received their arty alpha buff. At one point all of that was true but direct or indirect changes such as the TC nerfs, probing changes, etc made midrange HMs rather attractive on extender rigged Drakes for instance.
But yes, as a general proposition, one must be careful with preceived weaknesses and assuming they will not be affected by things not immediately apparent or present.
Liang Nuren wrote: Consider the release of the ASB. Everyone knew that active tanking was completely useless. Knew it with dead certainty. And everyone knew the ASB was underpowered and useless because of the 60 second reload timer. Oh, how everyone thought it game into the game prenerfed. But, it was actually SO POWERFUL that it ushered in a new age of active tanking. And now, even nerfed, it forms the cornerstone of your argument for why shields are better than armor. I don't agree. I remember opinion being very mixed about ASBs.
Also, you mischaracterize my position. ASBs do not form the cornerstone. They are one aspect of the imbalance (even with the new AAR). It would actually be more accurate to characterize my argument as mobility and range which shield allows being the cornerstone. Fitting costs on plates and armor reppers tend to rule out ranged guns. Plates work against mobility. Shield tanks allow nanofibers and mobility rigs (which nerf armor hp).
Liang Nuren wrote: So, what do we get from this? The fact that the Eve player base must be SMACKED IN THE FACE with a brick in order to wake up and notice that the old status quo isn't there anymore. This armor change *feels* underwhelming to people who long for capless dual XL AARs on a cruiser. And maybe - maybe - it really is underwhelming. But we'll never know until we freaking try it out.
-Liang Lol, go ahead and fabricate the straw man some more. Where have I asked for dual XL AARs or anyone itt for tha matter. You are too good a poster to engage in this stupid argumentation stategy. Please stop.
Anyway, I'm done with this for now. Done with dinner in rl, and looking for a calamari dessert in-game. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3154
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 05:16:00 -
[110] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:You're either being deliberately dense, or implying that I was.
No, I tend to think you're just dumb most of the time.
Quote:EDIT: And one more little nit to pick: Did people really think the ASB was bad when it was released? I remember seeing that and drooling at the stats, even with the reload time...
Well, there were 20+ page threads all over S&M QQing about how bad it was. So, yes.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3154
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 05:18:00 -
[111] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: Also, you mischaracterize my position. ASBs do not form the cornerstone. They are one aspect of the imbalance (even with the new AAR). It would actually be more accurate to characterize my argument as mobility and range which shield allows being the cornerstone. Fitting costs on plates and armor reppers tend to rule out ranged guns. Plates work against mobility. Shield tanks allow nanofibers and mobility rigs (which nerf armor hp).
Mobility and damage vs utility and tackle. That's.... that's a pretty balanced strategy TBH. :S
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 17:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Deacon Abox wrote: Also, you mischaracterize my position. ASBs do not form the cornerstone. They are one aspect of the imbalance (even with the new AAR). It would actually be more accurate to characterize my argument as mobility and range which shield allows being the cornerstone. Fitting costs on plates and armor reppers tend to rule out ranged guns. Plates work against mobility. Shield tanks allow nanofibers and mobility rigs (which nerf armor hp).
Mobility and damage vs utility and tackle. That's.... that's a pretty balanced strategy TBH. :S -Liang By that logic buffer armor tanks must be overpowered.
They get utility, tackle, AND more raw tank. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
246
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:09:00 -
[113] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:By that logic buffer armor tanks must be overpowered.
They get utility, tackle, AND more raw tank. Ask a capital pilot about that, he will agree.
Because shield have raw damage and speed option don't mean it's OP ; neither is armor having raw hp and utility/tackle. That is actually balance, when two things have their own role.
Active armor tanking ship are freakin fast now BTW, and combined with AAR, that will be murderous. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3164
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:16:00 -
[114] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Deacon Abox wrote: Also, you mischaracterize my position. ASBs do not form the cornerstone. They are one aspect of the imbalance (even with the new AAR). It would actually be more accurate to characterize my argument as mobility and range which shield allows being the cornerstone. Fitting costs on plates and armor reppers tend to rule out ranged guns. Plates work against mobility. Shield tanks allow nanofibers and mobility rigs (which nerf armor hp).
Mobility and damage vs utility and tackle. That's.... that's a pretty balanced strategy TBH. :S -Liang By that logic buffer armor tanks must be overpowered. They get utility, tackle, AND more raw tank.
You it's really weird but I do seem to remember buffer armor being a very strong mechanic.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Muad 'dib
The Imperial Fedaykin
784
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:21:00 -
[115] - Quote
oh noes, i might have to not use a module i never needed before, but its okay i can still cry about shields while not training for them. http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
112
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:26:00 -
[116] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about?
That defines efficiency. But it does nothing to show which is the more efficient. Which happens to be shields by the way. Considerably more so once you begin to look at the faction versions. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=196273&p=74 . Check here, you'll find all the maths beautifully worked out for you. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 01:44:00 -
[117] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
You it's really weird but I do seem to remember buffer armor being a very strong mechanic.
-Liang
Are you saying that armor buffer tanks are overpowered?
Mind you I don't factor in caps/SCs here, tbh it was yet another reason I was shocked at the appallingly bad decision CCP made when they gave shields the ASB and armor the hardener to armor, when it very obviously should have been the other way around.
The main problem I have with armor tanking as it is now, as well as with the changes to it, is that you can active shield tank just about any ship in the game and make it at least reasonably viable (I could count on one hand the number that can't, caps not included) whereas the same is not true with armor. If you want to active armor tank you are limited to a very small number of ships, most of which have bonuses specifically to make active armor tanking viable.
Nikuno wrote:Paikis wrote:Ctzn Snips wrote:Can you explain to me how active armor tanking is more cap efficient than active shield tanking?
I'll wait.
Um, it uses less capacitor per unit of repaired armour than shield boosters do? Cos, y'know that's kinda what efficiency is all about? That defines efficiency. But it does nothing to show which is the more efficient. Which happens to be shields by the way. Considerably more so once you begin to look at the faction versions. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=196273&p=74 . Check here, you'll find all the maths beautifully worked out for you. Don't even bother, I already showed that shields, even at t2 levels, get are more efficient then their armor counterparts. Unless of course you compare a 3 slot armor tank base to a 2 slot shield tank base, but then you need more slots to make armor work, making it less efficient anyway. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3165
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 02:51:00 -
[118] - Quote
Cambarus wrote: Are you saying that armor buffer tanks are overpowered?
Mind you I don't factor in caps/SCs here, tbh it was yet another reason I was shocked at the appallingly bad decision CCP made when they gave shields the ASB and armor the hardener to armor, when it very obviously should have been the other way around.
The main problem I have with armor tanking as it is now, as well as with the changes to it, is that you can active shield tank just about any ship in the game and make it at least reasonably viable (I could count on one hand the number that can't, caps not included) whereas the same is not true with armor. If you want to active armor tank you are limited to a very small number of ships, most of which have bonuses specifically to make active armor tanking viable.
No, I'm not saying that armor buffer tanks are overpowered. Considering the fact that we have XL plates and XL booster I'm not surprised that their respective tanking styles are a bit more amenable to unbonused tanking. That doesn't mean that there's an actual tank imbalance, though.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:14:00 -
[119] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Don't even bother, I already showed that shields, even at t2 levels, get are more efficient then their armor counterparts. Unless of course you compare a 3 slot armor tank base to a 2 slot shield tank base, but then you need more slots to make armor work, making it less efficient anyway.
If you think you can show T2 shield boosters to be more cap efficient than T2 armour reps, then you are absolutely crap at maths. Shown below are the reps per cap numbers for T2 modules. Shields are shown both with and without skills. Armour reps are not affected by skills.
T2 Armour Reps (cap / boost : ratio) (all Vs) SAR (40 / 80 : 2) MAR (160 / 320 : 2) LAR (400 / 800 : 2)
T2 Shield Boosts (cap / boost : ratio) (all Vs) SSB (18 / 30 : 1.667) MSB ( 54 / 90 : 1.667) LSB (144 / 240 : 1.667) XLSB (360 / 600 : 1.667)
T2 Shield Boosts (cap / boost : ratio) (no skills) SSB (20 / 30 : 1.5) MSB (60 / 90 : 1.5) LSB (160 / 240 : 1.5) XLSB (400 / 600 : 1.5)
Last time I checked, 2 was bigger than both 1.667 and 1.5 |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:33:00 -
[120] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Cambarus wrote:Don't even bother, I already showed that shields, even at t2 levels, get are more efficient then their armor counterparts. Unless of course you compare a 3 slot armor tank base to a 2 slot shield tank base, but then you need more slots to make armor work, making it less efficient anyway. If you think you can show T2 shield boosters to be more cap efficient than T2 armour reps, then you are absolutely crap at maths. Shown below are the reps per cap numbers for T2 modules. Shields are shown both with and without skills. Armour reps are not affected by skills. T2 Armour Reps (cap / boost : ratio) (all Vs) SAR (40 / 80 : 2) MAR (160 / 320 : 2) LAR (400 / 800 : 2) T2 Shield Boosts (cap / boost : ratio) (all Vs) SSB (18 / 30 : 1.667) MSB ( 54 / 90 : 1.667) LSB (144 / 240 : 1.667) XLSB (360 / 600 : 1.667) T2 Shield Boosts (cap / boost : ratio) (no skills) SSB (20 / 30 : 1.5) MSB (60 / 90 : 1.5) LSB (160 / 240 : 1.5) XLSB (400 / 600 : 1.5) Last time I checked, 2 was bigger than both 1.667 and 1.5
Cambarus wrote: 2 LARS repair 1600 armor for 800 cap, or 2 units repped per cap spent XLSB+ SBA boosts 816 for 360 cap, or ~2.26 units repped per cap spent
The argument for better cap efficiency for armor goes out the window once SBAs are factored in, and that's not even counting the cap-free ASBs.
Bolded the important bit. |
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:41:00 -
[121] - Quote
This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:44:00 -
[122] - Quote
Paikis wrote:This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? Exactly, and that makes shields more cap efficient than armor, even if the base reps themselves are not. |
Tsukino Stareine
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:12:00 -
[123] - Quote
everyone forgetting nanopaste takes up 0.1m3 of cargo space? |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3166
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:15:00 -
[124] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote:This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? Exactly, and that makes shields more cap efficient than armor, even if the base reps themselves are not.
Again, XL SB + SBA vs 2 LAR is not a reasonable way to examine efficiency.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3166
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:15:00 -
[125] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:everyone forgetting nanopaste takes up 0.1m3 of cargo space?
No, I've made the point repeatedly but everyone appears to like the idea of jump freightering in their cap booster supply every couple of weeks.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Tsukino Stareine
EVE University Ivy League
18
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:20:00 -
[126] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:everyone forgetting nanopaste takes up 0.1m3 of cargo space? No, I've made the point repeatedly but everyone appears to like the idea of jump freightering in their cap booster supply every couple of weeks. -Liang
it's not even that, you can basically carry unlimited supplies of it in a roam unlike cap boosters where you get like 8 reloads max |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 05:59:00 -
[127] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote:This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? Exactly, and that makes shields more cap efficient than armor, even if the base reps themselves are not.
Hands up everyone who has EVER used an SBA in PvP? And fair warning I'm going to call you a liar and demand a loss mail.
No one ever fits SBAs in PvP. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 06:26:00 -
[128] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote:This just in, 2 modules both using cap uses more cap than two modules where one doesn't use cap.
Who knew? Exactly, and that makes shields more cap efficient than armor, even if the base reps themselves are not. Hands up everyone who has EVER used an SBA in PvP? And fair warning I'm going to call you a liar and demand a loss mail. No one ever fits SBAs in PvP. EDIT: Let me also add, that if you are comparing 2 LAR IIs vs LSB II+SBA II then you're going to get MORE reps out of the dual armour setup. Even when you compare 2 LARs vs XLSB+SBA you get very nearly the same amount of reps. The point is that if you compare a 2 slot tank base from shields and one from armor that the shields are more efficient. Liang seems intent on comparing 2 LARs + an aux nano pump to an XLSB + SBA, but if you're going to do that then you're adding another variable into it, so you'd need to look at hp/cap/slot used, and shields still come out ahead.
As for actually using SBAs, aside from very specific scenarios an invuln is going to be better pretty much all the time. The reason I chose an SBA is because I didn't want to go into EHP repped per cap spent, because then there are too many different factors to weigh for me to actually bother to run all the numbers. I would wager however that you would get more EHP/CAP from shields than you would from armor if you go with an XLSB + invuln instead of an SBA. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 06:33:00 -
[129] - Quote
The SBA is 36%, where the invul is only 30%. The SBA uses more CPU though, so this is to be expected. Although, the invul does use cap...
As for the never ending armour vs shield comparisons...
1 slot comparison gives the armour tank an efficiency advantage. 2 slot comparison gives the armour tank a rep advantage.
The 2 slot armour tank also has the ability to only run half the tank, the shield tank is either on or off, there is no middle ground. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 07:20:00 -
[130] - Quote
Paikis wrote:The SBA is 36%, where the invul is only 30%. The SBA uses more CPU though, so this is to be expected. Although, the invul does use cap...
As for the never ending armour vs shield comparisons...
1 slot comparison gives the armour tank an efficiency advantage. 2 slot comparison gives the armour tank a rep advantage. XLSB+SBA gives more reps for less cap than 2 armor reppers. And no, a different naming convention does not make it an improper comparison to LARs, unless you run LSBs on BSs () or XLSBs on caps ()
Paikis wrote: The 2 slot armour tank also has the ability to only run half the tank, the shield tank is either on or off, there is no middle ground.
This I actually agree with, but on it's own it's not enough. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2056
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 08:14:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tsukino Stareine wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Tsukino Stareine wrote:everyone forgetting nanopaste takes up 0.1m3 of cargo space? No, I've made the point repeatedly but everyone appears to like the idea of jump freightering in their cap booster supply every couple of weeks. -Liang it's not even that, you can basically carry unlimited supplies of it in a roam unlike cap boosters where you get like 8 reloads max
That's cool, because your cargo is full of cap booster charges to keep the armor reppers running.
Quote:1 slot comparison gives the armour tank an efficiency advantage. 2 slot comparison gives the armour tank a rep advantage.
The 2 slot armour tank also has the ability to only run half the tank, the shield tank is either on or off, there is no middle ground.
There is no such thing as one-slot armor tank. Minimum configuration is one armor repper and cap booster.
XLASB = one midslot, 500pg, 200cpu, 284 reps LAAR+LARII+Heavy Capacitor Booster II = one midslot, 2 lows, 5792pg, 145cpu, 283 reps
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 09:54:00 -
[132] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:XLSB+SBA gives more reps for less cap than 2 armor reppers. And no, a different naming convention does not make it an improper comparison to LARs, unless you run LSBs on BSs ( ) or XLSBs on caps ( )
I do run LSBs on my mission battleships, they give the same rep per cap as the XLSB, but they don't use as much fitting, and I've never needed the bigger burst of the XLSB.
Also, as long as we're ignoring naming conventions and such in favour of making an argument, I want a 100% boost to large shield extenders so that they match the 1600mm plate. Thank you for pre-support on this matter.
Roime wrote:There is no such thing as one-slot armor tank. Minimum configuration is one armor repper and cap booster.
XLASB = one midslot, 500pg, 200cpu, 284 reps LAAR+LARII+Heavy Capacitor Booster II = one midslot, 2 lows, 5792pg, 145cpu, 283 reps
I really wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges. You've got both the wrong sizes AND you're comparing normal reps to ASBs AND not taking into consideration reload time. Once you factor in reload time (and use the correct size, but I'll include both) you get:
LASB = 36.5 boost per second XLASB = 84 bps LASB+SBA = 49.725 bps XLASB+SBA = 114.24 bps
And just for good measure, here's your 2 slot armour tank adjusted for reload times as well
LAAR+LARII = 72+71.112 = 143.112 boost per second
Now again, last time I checked, 143.112 was bigger than 114.24, which is bigger AGAIN than the 49.725 you should be comparing against. |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard Bora Alis
74
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 10:12:00 -
[133] - Quote
Yes, the AAR is worse than ASB.
It is good, because we do not need to train armour skill tree. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 16:22:00 -
[134] - Quote
Paikis wrote:
Also, as long as we're ignoring naming conventions and such in favour of making an argument, I want a 100% boost to large shield extenders so that they match the 1600mm plate. Thank you for pre-support on this matter.
I already addressed this in a previous post, please learn to read. |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
246
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 17:00:00 -
[135] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote:
Also, as long as we're ignoring naming conventions and such in favour of making an argument, I want a 100% boost to large shield extenders so that they match the 1600mm plate. Thank you for pre-support on this matter.
I already addressed this in a previous post, please learn to read. You adressed nothing. Fact are that you can actually have the same active tank on armor than on shield but you can have a way bigger buffer tank on armor than on shield ship.
Fact are that active armor tank can be made a lot more cap efficient than active shield tank, but active shield tank can be a lot more bursty than active armor.
And finaly, despite the capless nature of ASB being, IMO, a bad mecanic, AAR provide to armor ship a *very* good option for being both tanky AND speedy, to the point you would be a fool to ASB tank an armor ship now. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2059
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 21:11:00 -
[136] - Quote
Paikis wrote: Also, as long as we're ignoring naming conventions and such in favour of making an argument, I want a 100% boost to large shield extenders so that they match the 1600mm plate. Thank you for pre-support on this matter.
Just to clear this matter to you: buffer tanks are already balanced.
shield buffer: more damage, more mobility armor buffer: more tank, more options for controlling mobility
As you can see, their special traits balance each others out. This thread is about active tanking in PVP, where situation is imbalanced:
shield active: more damage, more tank armor active: more cap dependence?
In 1.1 they addressed mobility, situation was much worse before the rig change.
Quote: I really wish people would stop comparing apples to oranges. You've got both the wrong sizes AND you're comparing normal reps to ASBs AND not taking into consideration reload time. Once you factor in reload time (and use the correct size, but I'll include both) you get:
LASB = 36.5 boost per second XLASB = 84 bps LASB+SBA = 49.725 bps XLASB+SBA = 114.24 bps
And just for good measure, here's your 2 slot armour tank adjusted for reload times as well
LAAR+LARII = 72+71.112 = 143.112 boost per second
Now again, last time I checked, 143.112 was bigger than 114.24, which is bigger AGAIN than the 49.725 you should be comparing against.
Ok, you are confused about the modules and what they do, and that makes it difficult for you to understand the discussion.
XLASB and LAAR (Large Ancillary Armor Repairer) are both apples. Same size = biggest in their series, basically same operation principle, they are burst tanking modules. There is no XLAAR just to make it clear to you "Large" is the biggest subcap armor repper class. I included the LAR II on the comparison to get the same amount of tank as the equal shield module, both ASBs and AARs have 60 second reload time so that does not make the AAR magically rep more over time. You can leave the LARII out and redo your math, note that you cannot leave the cap booster out so it's still two slots vs one.
Just FYI since the mod names seem to confuse you:
small armor reppers, medium ASBs: frigates medium armor reppers, large ASBs: cruisers medium armor reppers, XLASBs: battlecruisers large armor reppers, XLASBs: battleships
Fittig requirements on armor reppers are designed to prevent oversizing, and even if you could put an oversized repper on a ship, they use too much cap. So oversizing armor reps is impossible. Only one small repper can be used without a cap booster in PVP with a small NOS, all others require a cap booster, triple rep setups need two. Only one AAR can be fit per ship by module restriction.
Large armor repairers can only be fitted on battleships, they use a massive amount of powergrid. Two of them powered by an equally massive module, the Heavy Capacitor Booster are as good as one XLASB.
You can two XLASBs on a battlecruiser. You can even fit one XLASB on a cruiser. Compare that to the medium reppers.
In the end, the issue is both related to ASB fittings, the fact that it combines powerful boosts with cap booster, leaving those precious midslots free to fit full tackle, thus negating the theoretical advantage of active armor tank. One-slot active shield tank = three-slot active armor tank. and one of them is a mid.
Then take a look at shield ships, count their mids, count armor mids and maybe you start to realize that the factor balancing buffer tanks does not exist in active tanks. And this is the issue.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 22:25:00 -
[137] - Quote
So we're ignoring naming conventions when they are inconvenient to our argument? Got it. We're also ignoring the advantages of Armour tanking (buffer) to claim imbalance. Right. Also we're ignoring reload times on Ancillary modules? OK.
Yeah, turns out, when you selectively ignore advantages of armour, and ignore penalties of shields, then compare the wrong sizes, ignore reload times, arbitrarily declare that you must fit a cap booster, ignore that shield ships might fit one as well, use a PvE module (SBA) to boost the shields... turns out shields look pretty good when you do that. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Crimson HellHounds Drunk3n H00ligans
414
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 23:50:00 -
[138] - Quote
Paikis wrote:So we're ignoring naming conventions when they are inconvenient to our argument? Got it. We're also ignoring the advantages of Armour tanking (buffer) to claim imbalance.
A comparison of function/use is far more valid than just comparing modules based on name...
Stop making bad points please. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 00:55:00 -
[139] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Fact are that you can actually have the same active tank on armor than on shield but you can have a way bigger buffer tank on armor than on shield ship.
This is true, and this is balanced, because in exchange for having less tank, shield buffer tanked ships get more damage. Look at the hurricane, as it is a perfect example of this. The shield version is less tanky and has less tackle, but its added mobility and damage make it every bit as good as its armor counterpart. Now imagine if the armor tanked version got nerfed so that it had the same ehp as the shield version. Would it still be worth flying? Aside from a few select instances, not really.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Fact are that active armor tank can be made a lot more cap efficient than active shield tank, but active shield tank can be a lot more bursty than active armor.
This is 100% wrong, and I already showed why. Shields get a module that ups their repping power for no extra cap, which in turn makes them more cap efficient. The ratio for 2 LARs versus XLSB+SBA is 2 : 2.26 for units repped per cap spent. since last time I checked, 2.26 is a bigger number then 2, that means that shields get more HP per cap spent than armor do when using the same number of slots. If you're using a different definition of cap efficiency please share it, and post some numbers to back it up.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: And finaly, despite the capless nature of ASB being, IMO, a bad mecanic, AAR provide to armor ship a *very* good option for being both tanky AND speedy, to the point you would be a fool to ASB tank an armor ship now.
I'm not fond of the mechanics for either, as I think they should be reversed, but tbh I think it's a fairly minor problem given the underlying imbalances between the tanking types.
Paikis wrote:So we're ignoring naming conventions when they are inconvenient to our argument? Got it. No, we ignore them ALWAYS. I cannot stress this enough. Think of it this way: For years lasers had a different naming scheme than other guns. Small lasers were called medium pulse lasers and mediums called larges. Do you think, under such a naming convention, that the guns being fit onto frigates should have been balanced against other frigate sized guns, or should they have been balanced against other guns containing 'medium' in their name? There is literally never an instance where the name of a mod/ship should decide its balancing stats, you have to look at what roles they fill in game, not what columns they fill on a spreadsheet.
Paikis wrote: We're also ignoring the advantages of Armour tanking (buffer) to claim imbalance. Right.
No, we're not. Armor buffer tanks have more tank than their shield counterparts, and this, in turn, is balanced by shield tanks having more DPS. In active tanking armor tanks lose this advantage, and gain nothing in return when compared to shield tanks. Honestly if you wanted to try to show that armor buffer tanks are overpowered that'd be fine with me, provided you have something to back it up. But I see armor tanks and shield tanks both being used all the time for buffer, but when it's active tanking it's nearly always shields, and looking at how much harder it is to make a viable active armor tank lends credence to the idea that armor tanking needs some love. Not that I don't love the changes they've implemented, but I'd like to see a bit more done to improve the balance between the 2.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2062
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:00:00 -
[140] - Quote
Paikis wrote:So we're ignoring naming conventions when they are inconvenient to our argument? Got it. We're also ignoring the advantages of Armour tanking (buffer) to claim imbalance. Right. Also we're ignoring reload times on Ancillary modules? OK.
Yeah, turns out, when you selectively ignore advantages of armour, and ignore penalties of shields, then compare the wrong sizes, ignore reload times, arbitrarily declare that you must fit a cap booster, ignore that shield ships might fit one as well, use a PvE module (SBA) to boost the shields... turns out shields look pretty good when you do that.
Damn man you are really struggling now :D
Your arguments seem to be based on arbitrary module names instead of their stats. You ignore the advantages of shield buffer and go on to claim that somehow A and B are balanced because unrelated C is OP. You fail to understnd that both Ancillary mods have 60 seconds reload time.
Anyway since you think that it's possible to fly active armor in pvp without a capbooster, it's obvious that you have never flown active armor in PVP.
Paikis here is a forum posting checklist for you: - do you have a basic command of written English? - do you have first- hand experience of the topic? - are you familiar with theory involved? - are you ready to change your opinion when proven wrong?
If you fail all these checks, you just make yourself look stupid and waste everybody's time
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:02:00 -
[141] - Quote
NO U |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3173
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:30:00 -
[142] - Quote
Can we please stop talking about SBAs like they've ever been mounted on a PVP ship? Thanks in advance.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
660
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:40:00 -
[143] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Can we please stop talking about SBAs like they've ever been mounted on a PVP ship? Thanks in advance.
-Liang
Ed: And while we're at it, can we stop pretending like it makes any sort of sense to compare a 2 slot shield tank to a 2 slot armor tank? The proper comparison is XL SB vs 2 LAR. All this nonsense about SBAs is simply that: nonsense.
Sorry Liang, that doesn't fit their story.
Armour tanking is gimped and shield tanks are over powered, facts be damned! |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3173
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 06:46:00 -
[144] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Can we please stop talking about SBAs like they've ever been mounted on a PVP ship? Thanks in advance.
-Liang
Ed: And while we're at it, can we stop pretending like it makes any sort of sense to compare a 2 slot shield tank to a 2 slot armor tank? The proper comparison is XL SB vs 2 LAR. All this nonsense about SBAs is simply that: nonsense. Sorry Liang, that doesn't fit their story. Armour tanking is gimped and shield tanks are over powered, facts be damned!
For a long time that was true. It remains to be seen whether it is still true. The AAR is unquestionably less impressive than the ASB - however, it doesn't need to be an ASB for active armor tanking to be viable. I think people haven't given the new changes a fair shake yet, and all the doom saying is just too premature to be based on any sort of objectiveness.
Ed: Honestly, if these threads that armor tanking was still massively underpowered weren't popping up everywhere we'd know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the pendulum had swung too far the other way. I think it'll take some time before people stop being stubborn about "Armor Sucks, LOL" long enough to actually look at the changes. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 07:16:00 -
[145] - Quote
I've already stated why I didn't want to use an invuln for comparison but fine: 2 LAR vs XLSB+Invuln: 2 LAR: 1600 EHP/800 cap = 2 EHP/cap spent XLSB+invuln: (600HP/(360+16)cap)/0.7damageReductionFrom30%Resists = 2.279 EHP/cap spent, though the exact number changes based on the number/type of other resist mods in play.
As for the slot numbers: We're discussing efficiency. Needing an extra slot to match the output and efficiency of shield tanks makes armor less efficient. If it's the accepted standard to compare a 3 slot tank to a 2 slot tank, I really shouldn't even need to post here showing that shields are more efficient; it should be self-evident.
And yes, the AAR may make armor tanking more viable (though tbh I think the rig changes were more important to that end) something being viable doesn't mean it's balanced. It will still be but a small handful of ships that can viably active armor tank, when you can shoehorn an active shield tank on to damn near anything. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3173
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 07:45:00 -
[146] - Quote
If you are discussing efficiency, then you should discuss slot efficiency. A low slot and fitting space on an armor tanker is eminently more available than a mid slot on a shield tanker. You should also discuss opportunity cost - what else can you not fit in that mid slot?
FWIW, I just ran the numbers and I'm pretty confident that I can take a traditional HAM Drake in an active tanked Omen (no links on either side - though it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot if the Drake had links).
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
403
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 11:25:00 -
[147] - Quote
I bet all Jove ships are fitted shield tanked.
also, Why nerf the large repair rigs, Im just not understanding. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2064
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 11:31:00 -
[148] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Can we please stop talking about SBAs like they've ever been mounted on a PVP ship? Thanks in advance.
-Liang
Ed: And while we're at it, can we stop pretending like it makes any sort of sense to compare a 2 slot shield tank to a 2 slot armor tank? The proper comparison is XL SB vs 2 LAR. All this nonsense about SBAs is simply that: nonsense. Sorry Liang, that doesn't fit their story. Armour tanking is gimped and shield tanks are over powered, facts be damned!
I didn't use an SBA in my comparison.
You are free to present your facts that prove that active armor has some kind of advantage that balances it in comparison with active shield.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
246
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 11:34:00 -
[149] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:No, we're not. Armor buffer tanks have more tank than their shield counterparts, and this, in turn, is balanced by shield tanks having more DPS. In active tanking armor tanks lose this advantage, and gain nothing in return when compared to shield tanks. Honestly if you wanted to try to show that armor buffer tanks are overpowered that'd be fine with me, provided you have something to back it up. But I see armor tanks and shield tanks both being used all the time for buffer, but when it's active tanking it's nearly always shields, and looking at how much harder it is to make a viable active armor tank lends credence to the idea that armor tanking needs some love. Not that I don't love the changes they've implemented, but I'd like to see a bit more done to improve the balance between the 2.
So shield buffer is balanced because it free the low slots for damage and speed mods, but active armor is bad because if you don't use more slot than active shield tank, you have free low slots you can use AND most of your mids free but its worse ?
Hence, mid slot are only good for shield tank module, and low slot are useful only with shield.
I think you are completely biased, or blind. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
45
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 17:49:00 -
[150] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:If you are discussing efficiency, then you should discuss slot efficiency. A low slot and fitting space on an armor tanker is eminently more available than a mid slot on a shield tanker. You should also discuss opportunity cost - what else can you not fit in that mid slot?
FWIW, I just ran the numbers and I'm pretty confident that I can take a traditional HAM Drake in an active tanked Omen (no links on either side - though it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot if the Drake had links).
-Liang
Ed: Ran the numbers again, in a bit more detail (for example, the drake can no longer overheat forever). Looks like I could probably take a Tengu linked Drake with only the AAR as my rep, but I'd end the fight in half structure. Still, it'd be a hell of a killmail so I may try this out sometime soon. :) Please do. Then get back to us. Otherwise this post of yours is idle speculation.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: So shield buffer is balanced because it free the low slots for damage and speed mods, but active armor is bad because if you don't use more slot than active shield tank, you have free low slots you can use AND most of your mids free but its worse ?
Hence, mid slot are only good for shield tank module, and low slot are useful only with shield.
I think you are completely biased, or blind.
And finaly,
Reread my sentence please : CAN be don't it's always the case. Fit a full rack of lows with active tank, fill your rigs with auxiliary nanopump, and you will have an active armor tank almost as good as an active shield tank but a lot more cap efficient. And no, no ship fit 2 SBA. And no ship fit shield defense capacitor safegard rig either.
Of course active shield have SBA, but mid slot != rig slot (the first one is far more valuable). Well Cambarus can answer for himself.
But what can I say. Some of you downplay the importance of available low slots. Damage mods, nanos (in synch with rigs for speed and agility which can't be fit on an armor tank because they nerf armor hp), lots of things can go in low slots that are valuable and armor ships would love to fit. You really can't just say but but my mids are more important than your lows and you get more lows so it's fair to compare as equal - one XLSB to 2 LAR - and ignore the fitting costs and slot subtraction inequity. |
|
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
41
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 20:48:00 -
[151] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Otherwise this post of yours is idle speculation.
You mean like every single post you've made in this thread?
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3183
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 21:56:00 -
[152] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Please do. Then get back to us. Otherwise this post of yours is idle speculation.
Bring a HAM Drake to Amamake and we can have a go at it? :)
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3183
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 21:58:00 -
[153] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote: But what can I say. Some of you downplay the importance of available low slots. Damage mods, nanos (in synch with rigs for speed and agility which can't be fit on an armor tank because they nerf armor hp), lots of things can go in low slots that are valuable and armor ships would love to fit. You really can't just say but but my mids are more important than your lows and you get more lows so it's fair to compare as equal - one XLSB to 2 LAR - and ignore the fitting costs and slot subtraction inequity.
And you downplay the importance of mid slots. Especially given how rare they are.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
396
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 22:17:00 -
[154] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Deacon Abox wrote: But what can I say. Some of you downplay the importance of available low slots. Damage mods, nanos (in synch with rigs for speed and agility which can't be fit on an armor tank because they nerf armor hp), lots of things can go in low slots that are valuable and armor ships would love to fit. You really can't just say but but my mids are more important than your lows and you get more lows so it's fair to compare as equal - one XLSB to 2 LAR - and ignore the fitting costs and slot subtraction inequity.
And you downplay the importance of mid slots. Especially given how rare they are. -Liang Which is why we would rather fit an ASB there than a cap boosters. Active armor does not have any spare mids because they are used for boosters. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3183
|
Posted - 2013.02.24 22:24:00 -
[155] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:Which is why we would rather fit an ASB there than a cap boosters. Active armor does not have any spare mids because they are used for boosters.
You seem to think that only one slot is required for tackle, so that means you have MWD/Point/Cap Booster. Seems like there's lots of armor tanking ships with 4 mids...
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
263
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 00:45:00 -
[156] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote: So shield buffer is balanced because it free the low slots for damage and speed mods, but active armor is bad because if you don't use more slot than active shield tank, you have free low slots you can use AND most of your mids free but its worse ?
Hence, mid slot are only good for shield tank module, and low slot are useful only with shield.
I think you are completely biased, or blind.
I'm not sure where you're reading about slots in that post of mine, as the slot issue was completely separate (though worth looking at nonetheless)
I realize that with all the different arguments getting thrown around, it can get a bit confusing, so I'll try to clarify some things here: First off, whether or not armor is more efficient than shields for active tanking is NOT the deciding factor in whether or not it's balanced. Yes, efficiency is nice, but it is but one of many things that affect balance. The reason I argued efficiency is because someone said that armor is more efficient for cap than shields, which is not only wrong, it's easy to prove that it's wrong, and I'll get to why in a bit.
As for the actual balance itself: I'll illustrate this with a metaphor that hopefully gets my point across: Imagine a scale. A literal balancing scale with each side weighed down by the various advantages of each type of tank. Now imagine removing one of the weights from the armor tank side of the scale(so moving from buffer tanking to active tanking on the comparison). There are 4 possible outcomes here; the first being that the scale was balanced, and removing the weight made it imbalanced, the second is that it was imbalanced to begin with, and removing the weight balanced it, the third is that it was imbalanced before, but removing the weight swung the balance in the other direction, and the fourth is that the weight was effectively nothing, and there was no change when it was removed.
Now, since how much a tank can actually, you know, TANK is definitely not an insignificant advantage, we can discard the last scenario. Then we look at passive tanking and whether or not it's reasonably balanced at it's core conceptual components. Since you very rarely hear people bemoan the uselessness of passive armor tanks, odds are they aren't broken, and a quick glance at eve-kill's top 20 suggests that shield buffers are also very viable, which means the scenario that best fits the current nature of the game is the first one, as it is the only one that has the 2 being balanced at the start . If you have 2 balanced competing ship types, and you remove a major advantage from one, is the other not basically guaranteed to become overpowered?
Sorry if this seems overly condescending, but it seems to me like this, literally the main basis of why I see active armor tanking as being broken, gets looked over by people who instead focus on the various nits they'd like to pick, leaving the main argument untouched. I literally can't think of a way to spell this out any more clearly, so hears hoping that cleared up any confusion there may have been.
Bouh Revetoile wrote: Reread my sentence please : CAN be don't it's always the case. Fit a full rack of lows with active tank, fill your rigs with auxiliary nanopump, and you will have an active armor tank almost as good as an active shield tank but a lot more cap efficient. And no, no ship fit 2 SBA. And no ship fit shield defense capacitor safegard rig either.
Of course active shield have SBA, but mid slot != rig slot (the first one is far more valuable).
Here's the problem with this argument: For armor tanks, you're filling the lows with tanking mods, and using the rigs for tanking as well. For shields, you ignore SBAs, because they're not a realistic mod to fit. How many fits do you see that dedicate literally all their lows and rigs to active tanking? That's going into bait tank territory, where SBAs would also be fair game as they're better after the first invuln for raw tanking output (and really ASBs are so much better at that role that it'd probably be rarer to see a LAR on a ship made for it than an SBA)
The only time an armor tank is going to be more efficient than a shield tank is if you only have one slot to work with, otherwise the shields will win out every time. "And no ship fit shield defense capacitor safegard rig either." Shields having the option of getting more tank with better efficiency, but declining to use it because it would be better to just up the tank difference even more is a pretty good sign that there's an imbalance in there somewhere. |
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
45
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 01:05:00 -
[157] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Please do. Then get back to us. Otherwise this post of yours is idle speculation. Bring a HAM Drake to Amamake and we can have a go at it? :) -Liang I don't fly that ****. rp ~ |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3185
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 01:13:00 -
[158] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:
As for the actual balance itself: I'll illustrate this with a metaphor that hopefully gets my point across: Imagine a scale. A literal balancing scale with each side weighed down by the various advantages of each type of tank. Now imagine removing one of the weights from the armor tank side of the scale(so moving from buffer tanking to active tanking on the comparison). There are 4 possible outcomes here; the first being that the scale was balanced, and removing the weight made it imbalanced, the second is that it was imbalanced to begin with, and removing the weight balanced it, the third is that it was imbalanced before, but removing the weight swung the balance in the other direction, and the fourth is that the weight was effectively nothing, and there was no change when it was removed.
There is a 5th option: that the scale is still moving and you don't know the outcome yet.
Quote: Now, since how much a tank can actually, you know, TANK is definitely not an insignificant advantage, we can discard the last scenario. Then we look at passive tanking and whether or not it's reasonably balanced at it's core conceptual components. Since you very rarely hear people bemoan the uselessness of passive armor tanks, odds are they aren't broken, and a quick glance at eve-kill's top 20 suggests that shield buffers are also very viable, which means the scenario that best fits the current nature of the game is the first one, as it is the only one that has the 2 being balanced at the start . If you have 2 balanced competing ship types, and you remove a major advantage from one, is the other not basically guaranteed to become overpowered?
Sorry if this seems overly condescending, but it seems to me like this, literally the main basis of why I see active armor tanking as being broken, gets looked over by people who instead focus on the various nits they'd like to pick, leaving the main argument untouched. I literally can't think of a way to spell this out any more clearly, so hears hoping that cleared up any confusion there may have been.
Ok, I followed what you were saying until the underlined part. I just don't know what you're referring to. Is it because you feel the maximum attainable tank is too low when compared to dual "oversized" ASB tanks?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3185
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 01:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Deacon Abox wrote:Please do. Then get back to us. Otherwise this post of yours is idle speculation. Bring a HAM Drake to Amamake and we can have a go at it? :) -Liang I don't fly that ****. rp ~
Ah, so another person that likes to talk a lot and won't put their own ISK on the line.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
247
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 01:17:00 -
[160] - Quote
First, the obvious : in your magical ladder, you forgot to add a rung when going for active armor tank : active armor tank do NOT reduce your speed anymore ! Active armor tank is not slow anymore ! So what are the drawback of active armor tank ? It takes low slots ; it uses a fair amount of PG ; and it uses cap. On the other side, all your mid slots are free, and your ship may have a lot more lows than mid slots.
Second, about dedicating slots for tanking, there is some, if not a lot, of fit, of myrmidon for example, which use 5 of their 6 low slots for tank. That may not be all of them, but that is more than even what a shield battleship can do for solo pvp. Because when a shield ship is lucky to have 5 mid slot for its shield tank, a lot of armor tanking ship have 6 mid slots. Hence, mid slot are rarer than low slots. Moreover, you often required two midslot for point/prop whereas on low slot for dps is common. Hence, it's far easier AND common to use more slot for armor than for shield.
Your argumentation could possibly be valid only if all ships had equal number of mid and low slots. That is not the case.
Finaly, about the capacitor safegard rig : this rig only reduce the cap need of shield booster, then someone using three of these rigs will not add even 1 hp/s of tank to its ship ; that's why nobody use them. Resistance rigs are often simply better, and ASB don't use cap anyway. And the SBA ? In pvp, either you need capacitor (read cap booster), a second ASB, or resistance. The CPU a SBA take is also significant, and it come with a penalty to overheat.
As opposed to active armor where auxiliary nanopump is awesome, and even more now with only a slight PG penalty. In the end, you may achieve the same efficiency between both, but shield will have lost any tanking advantage, and armor will still have more low slots available than shield will have mid slots.
Hence why Liang keep repeating that what you are arguing for is module parity instead of balance. Asking for shield and armor to be the same with the same number of modules is ridiculous. |
|
IbanezLaney
the church of awesome Caldari State Capturing
223
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 02:15:00 -
[161] - Quote
Has anyone here tried fighting a duel rep Incursis? They take 2x Neutron Blaster Merlins to kill if the Incursis pilot is good.
Armor is fine - just stop fail fitting. Fix this **** See Sea Pea. |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
263
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 02:24:00 -
[162] - Quote
Liang that post wasn't aimed at you, because for the most part I agree. My views on armor are based on what I've experienced, and it may well be possible that the AAR and rig changes will suddenly make armor fits viable, but we're arguing theorycrafting and metagame bullshit here, because it's what we do, you of all people should know that
Bouh: Active tanks not reducing speed is indeed a nice change, but the advantage will still go to shields for speed, for the same reason the damage advantage does. I will however admit that this change is a HUGE step in the right direction, as I've said a few times in this thread already. The nano-brawler deimos I was tested on sisi a while back (mind you this was the last time they said they were removing the speed penalty from active armor rigs, so it was a while back) needed 2 (mayybe it was 1, but I'm pretty sure it was 2) speed mods in the lows to really work. They make a difference, and a fairly large one, especially when speed/GTFOability is your main defence (as is usually the case with non-bait active tanks)
Now the myrm; you're honestly going to bring up a ship with an armor tank bonus, but that is just as good shield tanked, as an example of how the 2 are balanced? Really?
The slot issue goes back to my initial question; if shields and armor are balanced at the active level, then why are armor buffers not overpowered?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: The ASB should have been an armor mod to begin, and shields should have been given that hardener thing whose name always escapes me. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3185
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 02:57:00 -
[163] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Liang that post wasn't aimed at you, because for the most part I agree. My views on armor are based on what I've experienced, and it may well be possible that the AAR and rig changes will suddenly make armor fits viable, but we're arguing theorycrafting and metagame bullshit here, because it's what we do, you of all people should know that I've said it before and I'll say it again: The ASB should have been an armor mod to begin, and shields should have been given that hardener thing whose name always escapes me.
Heh, sure. Armor has been really bad for a really long time... I'm just a bit more willing to let it go and trust CCP will bring the modules up a bit given time. Making me 100% happy with the state of armor tanking on the first pass would be a sure-fire way to ASB-ize armor. I'm fairly confident we'll see one more pass on armor tanking. For instance, I'm pretty sure the RAH is going to see one more round of buffs aimed primarily at the cap usage. It's a pretty impressive module all things considered... but that cap use is still way too high.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3185
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 04:07:00 -
[164] - Quote
Let us examine the case of the Dual XL ASB Myrmidon. We'll use Crystals, Blue pill, and a Tengu Link. This is the fit:
[Myrmidon, ASB Myrmidon] Damage Control II Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
200mm AutoCannon II, Hail S 200mm AutoCannon II, Hail S 200mm AutoCannon II, Hail S 200mm AutoCannon II, Hail S 200mm AutoCannon II, Hail S
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
Ogre II x4
The important stats: - 16k Shield EHP - 6.4k DPS Peak Tank (24 seconds, 195421 EHP) - 3.2k DPS Tank (48 seconds, 196,333 EHP) - 717 DPS
Now, one thing to note is that the Myrm is going to take 17.7k damage between shield reps. You can mitigate this by perfectly timing your boost cycles, but this is somewhat unrealistic. For that reason, we'll focus on taking 3000 DPS. We expect the Myrm to do just dandy until it runs out of cap boosters at T=48, and it will promptly die at T=62*.
Let us now consider a triple rep Myrm:
[Myrmidon, Electron Triple Rep] Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400 Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M Heavy Electron Blaster II, Void M
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Ogre II x4
The important Stats: - 21k Armor EHP - 3134 DPS Peak Tank (52 seconds, 206080 EHP) - 629 DPS
Between rep cycles we can reasonably expect to see 12.5k damage come through, which leaves us at half armor. This is reasonable and we don't have to worry as much about timing. Thus, we expect to see the Myrm do just fine until it runs out of nanite charges on the MAAR at T=52 seconds. Shortly thereafter the reps will need to be un-overloaded and the tank drops to 1751. We expect to see a pretty explosion 24 seconds* later at T = 80 seconds.
But what about the whole trade-ASB thing? Well, since the nerf the Myrm can't do that nearly as effectively. It looks like that should work up to about 1500 DPS, and the Myrm will stay standing as long as it has cap boosters. On the flip side, the Armor Myrm handles this situation even better.
The biggest difference between them is that you can absolutely expect to take neuting if you're facing 3k DPS... and the ASB Myrm just handles that better than the MAAR Myrm. But still, it's not a bad performance from a triple rep MAAR brick.
-Liang
* Continuous approximation of a discrete simulation.
Ed: I suppose another difference is that the ASB Myrm doesn't handle nearly so well without those Crystals. The Armor Myrm is just almost unquestionably superior at that point. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
422
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 05:25:00 -
[165] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:Has anyone here tried fighting a duel rep Incursis? They take 2x Neutron Blaster Merlins to kill if the Incursis pilot is good.
Armor is fine - just stop fail fitting. It's safe to say that people complained about SARs quite rarely even before though. |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
267
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 05:37:00 -
[166] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:Has anyone here tried fighting a duel rep Incursis? They take 2x Neutron Blaster Merlins to kill if the Incursis pilot is good.
Armor is fine - just stop fail fitting.
Dual Rep incursus is a LM waiting to happen. They have a very limit engagement profile. I love hunting them down.
It definately doesn't take 2 merlins to kill one.
Dual Rep Incursus kill
Another one
And another one
Not posting these to brag, more to show that these ships are not that hard to kill in a variety of other ships.
This probably not the best example to show that armour tankings is fine tbh. Now rail brawling incursus with single SAR.....different argument altogether. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2079
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 06:40:00 -
[167] - Quote
Myrm stats from Liang's post without links and boosters:
ASB: 1467 burst tank (ASBs heated, 1605 with Invuln heated) AAR: 1018 burst tank (reppers heated)
Both fits have just scram for tackle, ASB does more damage besides having 57.6% more burst tank.
Arguably the situation is improved with AAR and rig changes (armor version is not slower anymore), but we are still looking at active shield tanking massively more on the best T1 armor rep bonused hull than active armor.
Question remains, what is the advantage of active armor tanking? In this comparison it's not tank, dps or midslot utility.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 06:40:00 -
[168] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:Which is why we would rather fit an ASB there than a cap boosters. Active armor does not have any spare mids because they are used for boosters. You seem to think that only one slot is required for tackle, so that means you have MWD/Point/Cap Booster. Seems like there's lots of armor tanking ships with 4 mids... -Liang You're a bit defensive but ok, I would be too if I got all the **** you get in this thread. Just to say, I fly shield way more than armor, and I appreciate the utility I can use like TD when I do, but that is always passive armor. You know this already, but passive is not the same story as active.
Midslots are not more worth than a lowslot when comparing shield and armor ships, simply because a shield ship will never have less than 5 mids, excluding frigates. You can still get full tackle and the biggest tank of all BC's on a Drake for example.
In the case of the Myrmidon, you would think that 5 mids would give great utility. Well damn, it doesn't at all. You get full tackle, which is great, but then the two other mids have to be used up for 2 medium sized cap boosters (you can't use your 2 small boosters in your example above, they won't run the tank at all) while every lowslot are used up for tanking.
So the problem here is clearly that on active tanking armor is behind simply because we have to use up as many midslots as shield tank has too, just in the form of boosters, while still using up every lowslot too, while the shield tankers can use them for damage and still have as good or better tank.
Just to finish off on this, I'm not a butthurt armortanker, I can soon fly any sub BS ship, but I would like more variety, but as it is now, you either go shield buffer, armor buffer or ASB.
EDIT:
Also, the argument that an AAR uses nanite paste for fuel so you can carry a lot more reloads than an ASB, does not hold any water. Why? because we also have to carry our cargo full with navy 800's to keep the AAR and the two other reps running. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3185
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 06:54:00 -
[169] - Quote
You people seem hell bent on bitching up a storm, almost entirely needlessly. I already went over why that was unreasonable. Frankly, the fact that you people are all up in this thread QQing is proof positive that they may have actually achieved balance instead of creating Yet Another ASB. Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 07:26:00 -
[170] - Quote
The fact that we are discussing the balance on a myrm is stupid. It's an armor bonused hull ffs, and still we can't agree on whether ASB og AAR is the better form of tank. Lets put the same logic on a Cyclone, then lets have a talk... |
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3185
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 07:47:00 -
[171] - Quote
We are discussing it because it used to be true. I think it'd be obvious to anyone with a brain that the Myrm is now a better armor tank than shield tank. Let's instead look at ships which are not armor or shield bonused. Let's see if we can construct an ASB Hurricane that can take on Ye Olde Traditional HAM Drake. Then we'll see if we can do the same thing with Armor.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 08:03:00 -
[172] - Quote
Well, I do agree that it is better as an armor tanker. My problem is that it takes 8 slots to be better than a 2 slot shield tank. On my phone atm, I'll eft up when I get to work.
Edit, I also have a problem with the fact that those 2 slots cant be used for utility because of boosters. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 08:42:00 -
[173] - Quote
[Hurricane, asb] Damage Control II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Co-Processor II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400 Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M [empty high slot]
Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
523 dps 35.8k EHP 591 dps tank 826 dps tank OL
Slots used for tank: 2 mids
[Hurricane, aar] Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer, Nanite Repair Paste Damage Control II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I, Navy Cap Booster 800 Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Scrambler II
Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Dual 180mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M [empty high slot]
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
333 dps 36k EHP 595 dps tank 740 dps tank OL
Slots used for tank: 6 lows, 2 mids |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
398
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 08:45:00 -
[174] - Quote
I honestly can't say which one I like better.
In a 1v1 the armor fit will win when asb hits reload, but in a small fast gang I might want the dps on the shield fit |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2079
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 11:03:00 -
[175] - Quote
QQing? I thought we are discussing balance. I've presented questions and arguments, not complaints. I'm trying to find a reason why active armor needs to be weaker for the different tanks to be balanced. This should be easy to answer, and I might simply overlook something obvious.
There is also the question of ASB oversizing, and what actually is a viable amount of local reps. Is the solution to fix ASB fitting requirements, or perhaps introduce one more size class of armour reppers. After all the imbalance is mostly on BC level.
About balance in general, in most cases it's easy to see how counterparts are balanced (even though apparently some people struggle with that). DPS is balanced with range, varieties of buffer tank are balanced by slot layouts. Some modules are balanced with tactics to counter them, like many types of EWAR, or by direct counter modules and skills. Now varieties of active tank appear to break this mold. Active armor is weaker, and has a hard counter (neuts for the clueless) unlike the srtonger counterpart that also has higher damage.
Denial is fruitless at this point. Even if you don't understand numbers, CCP game designers do and have acknowledged the issues and work on them. Now we have armor tanking 1.5, what still needs to be done is the topic discussed here.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Bouh Revetoile
TIPIAKS
247
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 12:55:00 -
[176] - Quote
Roime wrote:Myrm stats from Liang's post without links and boosters:
ASB: 1467 burst tank (ASBs heated, 1605 with Invuln heated) AAR: 1018 burst tank (reppers heated)
Both fits have just scram for tackle, ASB does more damage besides having 57.6% more burst tank.
Arguably the situation is improved with AAR and rig changes (armor version is not slower anymore), but we are still looking at active shield tanking massively more on the best T1 armor rep bonused hull than active armor.
Question remains, what is the advantage of active armor tanking? In this comparison it's not tank, dps or midslot utility.
You are forgetting the reload of death : when the ASB are empty, your ASB myrm is dead whereas the triple rep myrm can choose between a half tank for one minute or a little better until the end of the fight.
Liang study is good, even without boosters and links. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2080
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 13:31:00 -
[177] - Quote
I didn't, and the point was clearly illustrated by Liang, armor last whole 18 seconds longer under those(theoretical) circumstances. Now obviously if the dps would continue constant during the duration of either tank, fight would be lost before it began. But which one of the fits has a better chance to pop the opponent before tank fails?
In principle the idea of having two normal reppers after boosted reps are over is very nice, and can work in some situations. Maybe switch to dishonor drones while AAR is reloading? If you've failed to remove enough dps from the field before that, two non-heated vanilla reps with those resists won't last long. Dual rep Myrm with the additional resist mod can't fully tank one BC even with copious overheating, haven't run the numbers yet whether empty AAR can make up for lower resists.
Can't forget neuts tho. Running reppers continuously under neuting is easier said than done due to cap booster reload times.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3187
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:09:00 -
[178] - Quote
I like how you talk about it being a "whole 18 seconds longer" (30% more) and then compare the "51% more burst tank". All you are interested in doing is twisting whatever the outcome is until there is no possible way that shields is superior to armor. That is to say: that armor is overpowered.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Mire Stoude
Antelope with Night Vision Goggles
123
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:52:00 -
[179] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote:Has anyone here tried fighting a duel rep Incursis? They take 2x Neutron Blaster Merlins to kill if the Incursis pilot is good.
Armor is fine - just stop fail fitting.
Yep, 2 armor reps (the equivalent of 4 w/ the AAR) on a ship with a 35% bonus (so the equivalent of 5.4 armor reps) just to make it useful makes armor tanking 100% balanced.
Active tanking on a whole is a joke, armor is just that much worse. Active shield tanking is at least possible since oversized modules (1 or 2 MASB on a frig, for example) fit. I hate comparing the two modules since the devs stated they aren't happy with the ASB's but they haven't done anything to fix them either.
Active tanking just needs an overall buff (less cap usage for starters), active ARMOR tanking needs an extra buff. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1180
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 18:54:00 -
[180] - Quote
So, are you complaining about armor tanking in general (which kinda rox), shield tanking in general (which is meh), or just throwing out numbers to impress the ladies??
Cuz, your post is seriously "meh" and shows you might not know how to Eve (ie "lrn2eve")... "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2080
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:44:00 -
[181] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:I like how you talk about it being a "whole 18 seconds longer" (30% more) and then compare the "51% more burst tank". All you are interested in doing is twisting whatever the outcome is until there is no possible way that shields is superior to armor. That is to say: that armor is overpowered.
-Liang
29% and 57.6%. Twisting, whatever, outcomes, strawmen.
Also, 15.8%.
What implants did you use on the armor Myrm? Did you forget to use the correct cycle time for the reppers on the AAR fit that reaches 3134 hp/s, or was it just more comfortable for your argument?
(SPOILER: it's not 6.5 seconds)
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
663
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:45:00 -
[182] - Quote
Roime wrote:I'm trying to find a reason why active armor needs to be weaker for the different tanks to be balanced. This should be easy to answer, and I might simply overlook something obvious.
It is, and you did.
Armour tanks can get the same or (usually) better buffer tanks. Their buffer tanks are not reliant on capacitor.
Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour. |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2080
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 21:47:00 -
[183] - Quote
Dear Paikis, you tried that one already and while you are amusing, you are wrong. Lets go over this one more time.
First of all, buffer tanks are unrelated to the issue we are discussing. They don't affect the relative balance of the active tank variants in any way. You get easily confused by names, perhaps things we're easier for you if we called buffer tanks for example plate and forcefield tanks. Your argument is as relevant as saying that active tanks are balanced because railguns have longer range than beams.
Secondly, shield buffers are as good as armor buffers because they allow for more damage and mobility. This has been repeated several times in this thread already.
higher HP <> higher dps higher mobility <> more midslots
Tell me, if armor buffer is so superior in your opinion, why don't people fit plates on their Drakes? Why people often opt to shield tank their armor ships, but the other way around only on ECM ships? Right.
Anyway it's cool that you acknowledge that active armor is inferior. The imbalance is not as dramatic as it was before 1.1, they removed the mobility penalty and introduced AARs, which brought the total rep amount to nearly comparable levels with shield tank- when comparing the tanks on armor rep bonused hulls. AAR itself is a two-sided thing, it's a sweet module to put on a solo 800mm-plated Gallente HAC, but at the same time it feels like a hack, instead of just touching the normal reppers themselves. Cap issue is still left, and it causes active armor to have a hard counter, and lose it's comparative midslot advantage.
By the way, easiest solution is still to fix the broken shield mod oversizing. Introduce a BC-sized armor repper. Then buff all active mod rep/boost amounts, shield and armor, and make them all use cap, but less than currently.
This way the main choice would be the same easy balance as buffers have- tank or gank. Shield has still more mobility due to available lows and the astronautic rig drawbacks, armor has the token extra mid (well, not all but those that don't are plenty fast enough or have other traits to even things for them). But best of all both actives would have the same hard counter, but would all be viable.
Active tanking is fun and challenging gameplay and deserves to be promoted, it adds lovely blinking buttons that we can press and meters to monitor, allowing us to feel real pro. I think that the current oversized ASB boost amount is closer to ideal than current armor rep amount, and therefore would rather bring all active mods near that level instead of just nerfing ASBs.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
401
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 21:57:00 -
[184] - Quote
@Roime. Armor tanks (active ones) does not really have the advantage of mid slots. You have 3 or maybe if you are lucky 4 mid slots. Guess what at least one or two of those slots have to be used for. Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster.
Passive armor > mid slot ewar Active armor > Cap boosters |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2080
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:07:00 -
[185] - Quote
Well true, I've tried to make that point in several earlier posts in this thread, but It also depends on the hull. Or race mostly, at least the active armor bonused ships do gain one midslot (or in best case two) on fits that don't try to reach oversized ASB amounts of tank. Boosting the rep amount and reducing cap drain would decrease the pressure to fit more cap boosters. Not forgetting the cap requirement for ASBs as well in my suggestion, would be harder to fit a big shield boosting setup and have full tackle, resulting in comparative midslot advantage for armor.
In general it might be easier to rebalance existing things than inventing new things that cause need for more balancing.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
263
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:29:00 -
[186] - Quote
Paikis wrote: Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour.
The drake, tengu, cane, rokh and more than half the other top 20 ships out there would like to have a word with you. |
Taoist Dragon
Bastion of Mad Behaviour
269
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:41:00 -
[187] - Quote
You lot still whinging about the 'differences' in tanking types?!
All the suggestions to balance out armour and shield are just homogising them to being exactly the same.
NO!
Armour is different to shield. Guess what they are both usefull. They are both tanky (either active or passive or buffer). They have different applications in different scenarios.
FFS give it a rest.
If you don't like armour then FFS don't fly it! But don't whinge when an armourt tanker comes and pawns your shield ship with ewar or some such crap!
If you don't like shield don't fly them then. But don't whinge when you can't catch your targets!
Seriously you lot need to get out more and just have fun. That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
I'm NOT a Pirate! I'm a privateer! |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
663
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 22:44:00 -
[188] - Quote
Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote: Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour.
The drake, tengu, cane, rokh and more than half the other top 20 ships out there would like to have a word with you.
No way, you mean a bunch of ships with resistance bonuses have good tanks? Who knew?
The Prophecy, Proteus, Maller, Abaddon, and basically any armour ship with a resistance bonus to match all those shield ships with resist bonuses you linked would like to have a word with you.
|
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3189
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 23:53:00 -
[189] - Quote
Roime wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I like how you talk about it being a "whole 18 seconds longer" (30% more) and then compare the "51% more burst tank". All you are interested in doing is twisting whatever the outcome is until there is no possible way that shields is superior to armor. That is to say: that armor is overpowered.
-Liang 29% and 57.6%. Twisting, whatever, outcomes, strawmen. Also, 15.8%. What implants did you use on the armor Myrm? Did you forget to use the correct cycle time for the reppers on the AAR fit that reaches 3134 hp/s, or was it just more comfortable for your argument? (SPOILER: it's not 6.5 seconds)
Maybe the "noble" ones, considering we were talking about crystal implants?
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Cambarus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
264
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 00:04:00 -
[190] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote: Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour.
The drake, tengu, cane, rokh and more than half the other top 20 ships out there would like to have a word with you. No way, you mean a bunch of ships with resistance bonuses have good tanks? Who knew? The Prophecy, Proteus, Maller, Abaddon, and basically any armour ship with a resistance bonus to match all those shield ships with resist bonuses you linked would like to have a word with you. Exactly, armor and shield buffer tanks are balanced, despite armor having more actual tank. Take that advantage away, and shields are clearly better. |
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2084
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 07:10:00 -
[191] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Roime wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:I like how you talk about it being a "whole 18 seconds longer" (30% more) and then compare the "51% more burst tank". All you are interested in doing is twisting whatever the outcome is until there is no possible way that shields is superior to armor. That is to say: that armor is overpowered.
-Liang 29% and 57.6%. Twisting, whatever, outcomes, strawmen. Also, 15.8%. What implants did you use on the armor Myrm? Did you forget to use the correct cycle time for the reppers on the AAR fit that reaches 3134 hp/s, or was it just more comfortable for your argument? (SPOILER: it's not 6.5 seconds) Maybe the "noble" ones, considering we were talking about crystal implants? -Liang
They are all "noble" ones. Why not simply list all the modifiers that you use?
And again, your argument was based on false numbers. The AAR runs out of nanite at about T=32, and therefore pops at T=55.
Seven seconds before the ASB version.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
401
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 08:46:00 -
[192] - Quote
It doesn't really matter how fast either run out of charges. What matters is if you can tank the dps incoming. With slow cycles you have to run them continuously and maybe even overload to keep up. With fast cycle times, you don't even have to do that. You do one cycle, then wait until you take enough damage, then cycle again.
This is where shield shines bright and armor struggles behind. This is why we fit 3 reps and micromanage them to counter the dps, while shield can just turn off auto-repeat and hit the asb when needed.
As I concluded before, the tanking in itself is more or less balanced. I would f.ex rather fly a triple rep Hurricane solo than a ASB one, because the dps tanked are about the same, but armor runs for longer.
It's a bit sad that in the nature of active armor tanking you get all the microing. Cap, overloading boosters, overloading reps, managing charges in the new AAR, all this together with actually fighting. It gets overwhelming fast. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3189
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 08:55:00 -
[193] - Quote
Roime wrote:They are all "noble" ones. Why not simply list all the modifiers that you use?
I didn't list Crystal Alpha, Crystal Beta ... etc either. It should be pretty obvious to anyone involved in this conversation which implants were used.
Quote: And again, your argument was based on false numbers. The AAR runs out of nanite at about T=32, and therefore pops at T=55.
Seven seconds before the ASB version.
Nice catch - I've edited the post. However, I still contend that the armor Myrm handles the overall tanking job in a superior manner to the ASB Myrmidon. There's a couple of reasons for this, not the least of which is that jumping a Myrmidon into 3000 DPS is getting into armor tanking territory (95 seconds with dual 1600 plates). Another reason is that the sig radius on the armor Myrmidon is smaller than the ASB Myrm - even more-so when you consider that you aren't tied to using Crystals on armor Myrmidon. You could use Slaves or Halos instead - both of which substantially increase your tank. And finally, I think that the Armor Myrmidon just flat handles realistic tank levels better.
Consider the ASB Myrm. In order to "sustain" a tank, the ASB Myrm must spread 9 navy charges out over 60 seconds. That means the maximum "sustainable" tank with a dual ASB is ~1200 DPS. On the flip side, the MAAR setup is able to sustain almost 1800 DPS until it runs out of cap boosters. There was some complaining earlier about the triple cap boost, but I don't think anyone caught on to the fact that the dual 400s were meant to help offset neuting.
Anyway, the situation to me seems pretty cut and dry. The ASB Myrmidon is a one trick pony that doesn't trick very well... while the armor Myrm is much more versatile and powerful.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
401
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 09:27:00 -
[194] - Quote
It bothers me a bit that the Myrmidon is impossible to fit unless you have perfect skills and then some. In a triple rep setup I had to fit the dual 150 mm railguns, and that's even when we now have one less highslot. Need that AWU 5 to fit dual 180's.
I really appreciate the effort you put into this discussion Liang. |
Lili Lu
702
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 15:49:00 -
[195] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Cambarus wrote:Paikis wrote: Why should active armour not be as good as active shields? Because buffer shields are not as good as buffer armour.
The drake, tengu, cane, rokh and more than half the other top 20 ships out there would like to have a word with you. No way, you mean a bunch of ships with resistance bonuses have good tanks? Who knew? The Prophecy, Proteus, Maller, Abaddon, and basically any armour ship with a resistance bonus to match all those shield ships with resist bonuses you linked would like to have a word with you. Yes, and until the top 20 is itself topped with the ships you just listed, instead of the shield tanked or shield resist ships that are currently there, then you can whine without being laughed at. http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 Oh look, no Prophecy, no Proteus, no Maller, not even an Abaddon any longer. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
670
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 20:48:00 -
[196] - Quote
Oh look. Another lemming who thinks that popularity has anything to do with effectiveness. Tell me more about why the Drake used to be on top of that list. (Hint: it had nothing to do with the Drake being good)
You are bad, and you should feel bad. |
Sid Hudgens
Totally not an NPC Corp
145
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 21:18:00 -
[197] - Quote
This is EVE people. Your character can train into whatever they want. There is no need for things to be "balanced."
If one thing is better than another then the rational and sensible thing to do it USE THE BETTER THING. "....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced." |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
624
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 21:31:00 -
[198] - Quote
Sid Hudgens wrote:This is EVE people. Your character can train into whatever they want. There is no need for things to be "balanced." If one thing is better than another then the rational and sensible thing to do it USE THE BETTER THING. No, that's not rational at all as it destroys the meaningfulness of choice and reduces the importance of strategic ship and fitting choices. |
Lili Lu
702
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 04:50:00 -
[199] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Oh look. Another lemming who thinks that popularity has anything to do with effectiveness. Tell me more about why the Drake used to be on top of that list. (Hint: it had nothing to do with the Drake being good)
You are bad, and you should feel bad. Actually I'm laughing at you implying that people flew Drakes so much because they were simply popular and had no effectiveness/advantages. And yes it had to do with an almost BS sized buffer on a ship that could hit at 70km with mediocre but better than the alternatives at that range. It could also be configured to perma mwd. All while being quite cheap. No other BC could do what it did. The closest was the Cane. And it really neither had the range or tank.
Blob null fleet battles. Lowsec small gang roams. Pretty much any type of pvp in eve the Drake was well represented in. So much so that it outnumbered whatever was the number two ship by 2 or 3 to 1. Eve-kill is looking better now. Still reflecting certain in-game advantages for certain ships. But no ship is getting the ridiculous usage numbers the pre-HM nerf drake was getting. And of course it was the easy route to pve isk earning.
But of course people in a game use what is not really the best to use. They love flying substandard stuff and not worrying about it exploding and hitting their wallets. You are right. It must be the look of the thing. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
671
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:04:00 -
[200] - Quote
DRAEKs were used in nullsec because they were easy to fly, relatively effective with low SP and cheap. NOT because they were particularly effective. The word Drake is a synonym for the word average. Also, Drakes were not the most used ship in low, not even close. The most used BC was the cane by far.
You suggesting that the Drake's position on a killboard has anything to do with how effective they are is laughable. 100 drake pilots all ***** onto a kill, let's say it's a ratting carrier that they caught. That is 100 kills attributed to Drakes. 1 ship died to a blob of drakes, and +100 drake kills is recorded.
Being high on a killboard doesn't tell you squat about how effective a thing is, it only tells you how many pilots flying that particular ship managed to land a hit on a ship that exploded. If a nullsec block decided that they were going to use fleets of n00bships and dragged them up to the top of eve-kill, would you be in here telling us all how overpowered the n00bships are? |
|
Inkarr Hashur
Sine Nobilitatis
207
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:15:00 -
[201] - Quote
Paikis wrote:DRAEKs were used in nullsec because they were easy to fly, relatively effective with low SP and cheap. NOT because they were particularly effective. The word Drake is a synonym for the word average. Also, Drakes were not the most used ship in low, not even close. The most used BC was the cane by far.
You suggesting that the Drake's position on a killboard has anything to do with how effective they are is laughable. 100 drake pilots all ***** onto a kill, let's say it's a ratting carrier that they caught. That is 100 kills attributed to Drakes. 1 ship died to a blob of drakes, and +100 drake kills is recorded.
Being high on a killboard doesn't tell you squat about how effective a thing is, it only tells you how many pilots flying that particular ship managed to land a hit on a ship that exploded. If a nullsec block decided that they were going to use fleets of n00bships and dragged them up to the top of eve-kill, would you be in here telling us all how overpowered the n00bships are?
Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities?
|
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
671
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 05:28:00 -
[202] - Quote
Inkarr Hashur wrote:Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities?
Harbingers need cap injectors, harbingers have optimal and falloff and tracking to worry about, harbingers have crystals that need to be swapped depending on range. Harbingers have more buttons to push, more things to worry about and yes, are harder to fly.
Yes, the Drake is easy. FC fleet warps his fleet to position and calls primary. Plebs in the fleet target what he tells them to and push F1. That's it. No crystal swapping, no manual piloting to reduce transversal, no worrying about range to target, or capacitor. Just target, F1.
Drakes are simple. They are hard to screw up. |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire PLEASE NOT VIOLENCE OUR BOATS
34
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 09:02:00 -
[203] - Quote
Armortanking atm is so good, I secretely refit my zealots to shield when FC isn't watching <,<
Drake has never been on top because it was good or anything. Also Heavy Missiles haven't been nerfed to reduce the drakes formerly unmatched damage-projection in the 80mil-class. Also Drakes don't have 90k+ EHP in a tankfit or still 50k+ EHP even in a podlafit. Totally not very good that ship. Totally overrated and nerfhammered
PS: I really like those new AARs, though it seems they are just a small fraction superior to deadspace reppers. Looks now a bit like Brutixes with a few-cycles-a-type-MAR. |
Lili Lu
702
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 15:46:00 -
[204] - Quote
Paikis wrote:Inkarr Hashur wrote:Easy to fly? What, and flying a harbinger would have just KILLED those newbies right? Way beyond their capabilities? Harbingers need cap injectors, harbingers have optimal and falloff and tracking to worry about, harbingers have crystals that need to be swapped depending on range. Harbingers have more buttons to push, more things to worry about and yes, are harder to fly. Yes, the Drake is easy. FC fleet warps his fleet to position and calls primary. Plebs in the fleet target what he tells them to and push F1. That's it. No crystal swapping, no manual piloting to reduce transversal, no worrying about range to target, or capacitor. Just target, F1. Drakes are simple. They are hard to screw up. And this is not "effectiveness", this is not it "being good" ? I answered your challenge and question. You answered your own question and challenge. Inkarr pointed out to you how Harbys were not similarly blessed with usage. Myrms were not similarly utilized by the eve population. The ship was not popular for its looks. It was popular because as I answered, it was cheap, it was easy, it had good range, it had a good tank, it even ffs had mobility advantages.
Also, you are sounding like a certain person who loved to post in the HM nerf thread and claim that Canes were everywhere in lowsec while Drakes were not. And that all the Drake usage was in nullsec. Care to present some data to support your claim? Data, not your subjective perception and belief.
Nope didn't think so. We (non CCP employees) don't have any data on the distribution of Drake usage. So my claim that Drakes predominated in lowsec as well is just as supported as yours that they weren't used and it was all Canes. Regardless, whatever the actual distribution was, it cannot absolve the ship from the raw number usage. Maelstroms, Abaddons, and even Canes got on plenty of nullsec blob battle kills as well. But they still didn't have the raw kill numbers of Drakes. Noone was putting up the numbers with any plated brick BSs. Nor definitely were there any plated brick, oops I'm out of cap because I simply can't cram enough 800 cap boosters in my hold, Harbys.
The ship was cheap. But so were Harbys and Myrms. The ship was good. But so were Maelstroms and Abaddons. However, in the combination, the ship was too good, it was too effective. It is now a little less so in range and tank. It may be enough to restore BSs in nullsec wars. But we won't know until the blue donut of nullsec grows some red mold on it. And whatever the outcome there it certainly won't be AAR fitted active armor bonused Gallente ships dominating eve-kill. Armor honeycombing will probably not be enough to tilt the balance toward being a plated short range armor buffered brick either. But we shall see. |
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
499
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:08:00 -
[205] - Quote
Marcus Gideon wrote:So far I've seen 2 pages of weak arguments trying to say "Hey, don't bash on Armor tanking. It's good already... I mean, it's not Shield Tanking, but it's getting better"
So far, few have addressed my initial complaints (other than saying I should just get over it and quit whining)
- Shield ships can fit SEVERAL ASB, while Armor ships will be hard locked to using just 1 AAB. Again, CCP admits multiple ASB made shields very powerful. But rather than go back and hard lock ASB, they just pre-nerf AAB. Fitting multi armor reps is a very common fitting style. it is easy to do. Dual and even triple armor reps were very common long before this module was added. Fitting dual or tripple AAR would be well over powered as you would have double the rep for the same power grid and cap use. The nanites may cost more than booster charges, but you can fit way way more in your cargo hold.
It is very rare to see a dual or triple SB fit. You will usually see a single larger unit used instead. Fitting dual ASB really gimps any fit due to the fitting requirements of those modules. Also fitting dual ASB, will give you double reps, at the cost of the the extenders, hardeners, or ewar mods, you have to drop to make it fit. Also with ASB the size of the cap boosters is a big problem. Even running a single ASB your cargo is ussually full of charges. A dual ASB will burn them twice as fast, meaning you can not perma tank with it, but will only be able to carry enough charges for 1-2 reloads each.
These are two completely different tanking styles, and can not be compared in an apples to apples fashion. You have stated all the benifits of the ASB and all the negatives of the AAR but have ignored the negatives of the ASB or the benefits of the AAR. For an accurate comparison you need to consider all aspects, not just the parts that seem to support your argument.
Marcus Gideon wrote:- Shield ASB are Capless, for no particular reason. Ordinary Shields Boosters aren't Capless, but they made a special exception. Ordinary Armor Reppers aren't Capless either, and CCP decided to "stick to their guns" in that regard. XL-ASB reps just over double compared to a normal XL-SB(980 vs 450 or 117% bonus) but not as high as the boost L-AAR gets(1350 vs 600 or 125% bonus). When burning charges the AAR boosts 3 times what it does without charges. (450*3=1350) Sure it still burns cap, but gets more than double the rep of a standard AR(600) for the same cap use,compared to the ASB also give more than double the boost but burning 3 times the cap. But when not burning charges the AAR used the same cap as the AR(400GJ) While the XL-ASB burns more than triple the cap of a XL-SB(1320GJ vs 400GJ) when run without charges.
ASB are not capless, they just get their cap from the charges. But these charges do not increase the repair value of the module like the AAR does. Also with the cap booster charges being so bulky you can not carry very many in your cargo hold. It is a fairly even trade off. Once the charges are gone, the XL-ASB maintains the double boost over the XL-SB while burning 3 times the cap. While the L-AAR only gives 75% of the boost the L-AR gives but continues to burn the same cap. Also the XL-ASB holds less charges, and less spares in the cargo hold, meaning you will runout sooner. But the L-AAR has less of an issue with running out of charges, but get hurt more when it does.
Marcus Gideon wrote:- Shield ASB burn charges that cost as little as 400 ISK each. Armor AAB burn charges that cost 30,000 ISK each. I just went back and updated the OP, since I didn't factor the Paste costs right before. Maybe if people take a look at how expensive it is to run an AAB compared to an ASB... Sure the nanite paste does cost a lot more, but as its demand goes up, the supply will be increased and the prices will come down. Even if the price does not come down, you are still getting the benifit of much smaller charges, so you can carry way more, and a 300% increase in module effectiveness over the same size AR. While the ASB only gets about 117% better reps over the SB and has a much higher restriction on the number of charges you can carry.
To summarize the key points of the L-AAR that differ from the XL-ASB; - charges give a 300% boost to repair amount -charges are much smaller so you can carry way more extras -when charges run out it burns the same cap(400GJ) same as the standard AR but gives 75% of the boost -Stacks very nicely with additional standard AR's.
To summarize the key points of the XL-ASB that differ from the L-AAR; -Charges remove cap but do not affect performance of the module -Charges are much bulkier, and take up way more room in cargo hold -ships can hold way less spare charges -when charges run out it burns more than triple the cap of the XL-SB while only giving 45% more boost(1320GJ vs 400GJ) - Is very difficult to stack with additional ASB's or SB's due to high fitting requirements.
Keep in mind that I am comparing the XL-ASB to the L-AAR, the L-AAR looks even better when compared to the L-ASB |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
426
|
Posted - 2013.03.03 21:44:00 -
[206] - Quote
It's a stupid argument that you can carry more nanite paste. Why? Because you can only carry so many navy 800's to fill your 2 medium cap boosters, so you are just as limited as the ASB |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |