| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tac Mannall
Defenders of Order
1
   |
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've read a lot of really good posts by people on these forums about the balances to Hybrids and how we should go about fixing the problem and a lot of them are great and insightful thoughts on the issues at hand. And while there is a lot of agreement on the issues of the weapons, the delivery of them into range is still very much a problem.
We all know that armor tanking a short range ships is an awkward task at best, those armor plates and rigs add so much weight to the ships that it's just adds another hurdle to leap. So what if we take it the logical other option? Why not get rid of the heavy plates and see what we can do with Active tanking itself? It would leave the agility high but comes with it's own set of problems, as everyone knows, nos and neuts come to mind.
What we should ask, with the Hybrid re-balancing dropping the fittings and cap requirements of the weapons, how could we change active armor tanking to where it could be a viable aspect of Gallente ships? |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
177
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Two of the big reasons active shield tanking is preferred in PvP over active armor tanking is due to the shield booster's short cycle time and the fact that shield boosters give their effect as soon as it is activated (armor reps take effect after the cycle is completed).
"Just because I seem like an idiot, doesn't mean I am one."
~Unknown |
Onictus
Legendary Knights
Vorpal's Edge
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
Nos's are less of an issue than nuets, but they are problem #1.
The other issue is still going to be speed after rig penalties, along with the added vulnerability to alpha and raw swarming.
You end up with a relatively agile ship, that has no ability to run anything down that isn't carrying plates.
The other issue of course the fact that armor reppers (particularly) tend to cost the same amount of grid for Gallente as the largest in class blasters do, removing the ability to upsize a la shield boosters and pulse.
This factored in with the slow cycle time, will always make active tanking less effective except in smaller gangs.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 10:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
By fixing current EHP stupidity.
- base EHP (values are way too big)
- plates/shield extenders (way too easy to fit while prodiving so much EHP)
- rigs (non-stacking penalized neither with mods nor among each other; too easy to fit; sig radius penalty is a joke)
Each of those needs attention.
2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is"
2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?"
Nice progress, guys. |
Denuo Secus
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 10:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
I cannot speak about Gallente ships but on Amarr I always found pure buffer tanking subpar - at least in very small scale PvP without logistic support. This is what I learned in FW PvP, solo or in a small gang of 4 ships:
- When facing the blob it does not matter if armor buffer or armor repper, I'm dead anyhow.
- Against numbers I can fight a repper sometimes offers the edge to survive.
- The ability to repair on a safe spot or on field after a fight and being able to fight arriving reinforcements/latecomers is more important than more pure EHP.
- Pure repper is tricky. Neuting causes death very often (ofc). I prefer hybrid tanking. Some buffer + one repper. Also trimarks. It could be called "jack of all trades, master of none" but in real PvP it works quite good, at least for me. Buffer to survive neuts and alpha + repper to gain HPs back if possible. |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 11:17:00 -
[6] - Quote
Denuo Secus wrote:Pure repper is tricky. Neuting causes death very often (ofc). I prefer hybrid tanking. Some buffer + one repper. Also trimarks. It could be called "jack of all trades, master of none" but in real PvP it works quite good, at least for me. Buffer to survive neuts and alpha + repper to gain HPs back if possible.
This at the moment is key unless you can fit and sustain multiple reps.
As for fixes: -
The rep cycle time, amount and cap use could be cut in half to give the same amount of rep over time but more frequent reps. overheating would have to be looked at to make sure they overheat for the same time as now.
Rep amount and fittings could be rebalanced
How would people feel about changing shield and armour to active and passive rig sets.
- Passive - decrease speed - All armour and shield extension/resistance rigs
- Active - increase sig radius - All armour and shield rigs affecting active tanking, maybe need to add a weak omni resist rig in here
This may help active active armour/shield compete with buffer as they would always be faster. Even I am not sure how I feel about this, may make armour and shield to similar may unbalance a lot of things. Could be that rigs and drawbacks need looking at as a whole.
|
Raven Ether
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Two of the big reasons active shield tanking is preferred in PvP over active armor tanking is due to the shield booster's short cycle time and the fact that shield boosters give their effect as soon as it is activated (armor reps take effect after the cycle is completed).
Just fix this and it should be fine. |
DarkAegix
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
269
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 12:26:00 -
[8] - Quote
-More powergrid, so reps/cap boosters can be fit with at least ion blasters
-More cargo, so a decent amount of booster charges can be brought along.
Here's a fit the Brutix SHOULD be able to achieve:
[Brutix, Ion reps]
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Heavy Ion Blaster II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge M
Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II
Stasis Webifier II
Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800
Medium Armor Repairer II
Medium Armor Repairer II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Damage Control II
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump I
Medium Nanobot Accelerator I
Warrior II x5
7% over powergrid. 497dps. 444hp/s.
This is with the hybrid buff. |
Ruah Piskonit
PIE Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
active armor tanking works well in frigates. In cruisers and above, passive tanking is much better overall.
to make it viable, you would need to look at the fitting, cap use, and rep amount - and changing these things has huge balancing issues. |
Emily Poast
The Whipping Post
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Im a fan of active tanks and small gang warfare. I really hope they can resolve this. I have taken to fitting a plate +reps on my ships too. The active tanking rigs need to remove the speed penalty.
And as the above poster stated, the reps themselves need to take less grid and repair more or faster, so the plate is less necessary. I am wondering if you can fit dual reps +ions on a brutix with the changes as they are on SIsi?
It just doesnt jive that the race with the shortest range weapons has to gimp their speed even more to have an effective tank. I hope they get it fixed. |
|
|
Mordrake Black
The One Track Mind
The One Track Mind Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 16:23:00 -
[11] - Quote
i active armor tank my devoter for tanking gate guns perm
|
Tac Mannall
Defenders of Order
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
Emily Poast wrote:The active tanking rigs need to remove the speed penalty.
I like that idea actually but rather a different way than removing it straight out. How about dropping the base rig penalties for active armor rigs to 5% instead of 10% for passive tanked ones. The penalty would be zero but only when the pilot has armor rigging up to five and give a bigger definition between active and agile, and passive and slow.
As for being neuted and alphaed, the simplest way of solving it would be to increase base resistances or give resistance bonuses to ships like the Amarr, less armor getting damaged and less needing to be repaired so less dependance on cap. Simplest yes, but there are rather large problems with it as well, first being that bonuses are usualy attributed to Amarr and second that it would buff buffer tanks just as much as active while not really encouraging players to switch.
I do agree that the armor repair modual fitting requirements probably need to be looked at but they are much cheaper than the requirements for the heavier plates. That does raise a question though: Should we focus more on the moduals themselves or should we look at ships as well? |
Denuo Secus
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 19:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tac Mannall wrote:[quote=Emily Poast]....I do agree that the armor repair modual fitting requirements probably need to be looked at but they are much cheaper than the requirements for the heavier plates. That does raise a question though: Should we focus more on the moduals themselves or should we look at ships as well?
True. Especially on battleships! A large armor repper is quite an investment - fitting wise... |
Sydney Nelson
Nelson Universal Aerospace
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:01:00 -
[14] - Quote
You guys are on the right-track I think.
The speed drawback on active armor-rigs is definately a bad thing.
It's kinda nice to see a thread where pretty-much every-one agrees.
The way I see it:
Passive Armor Buffer-tank = Big tank, slow ship.
Active Armor Tank = Med tank (high sustained), regular speed.
Minimal Tank/Nano = Low tank, high speed.
The way it is now, Active tanking is barely faster than buffer-plating.
Also hybrid ships need a speed (or agility) buff.
That's a whole 'nother thread though.
I'll do a shameless plug for my "Speed bonus to Hybrid turrets" idea anyway though. ;)
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=28157&p=50
Pg. 50 Post #989 |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Armour rep issues?
-extreme cap hungry: pg requirements must be lowered has cap consumption
-V E R Y S L O W cycle -with top skills is still crap, with faster cycle you cap out faster, to rep the same amount a single plate gives you you need to fight for about 40sec, overall you're better with plates unless specific rare situations
-end cycle rep --> can't figure the initial purpose for this or any valid argument, specially with no auto regeneration like shields
-ratio amount rep/cap use/pg needed vs plate: now some just say too much ehp from buffer yada yada yada....ridiculous
-ships bonus only on self rep, they should be changed on income reps also
-shield fleets logistics are far too good
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 11:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tac Mannall wrote:Emily Poast wrote:The active tanking rigs need to remove the speed penalty. I like that idea actually but rather a different way than removing it straight out. How about dropping the base rig penalties for active armor rigs to 5% instead of 10% for passive tanked ones. The penalty would be zero but only when the pilot has armor rigging up to five and give a bigger definition between active and agile, and passive and slow.
This is quite an elegant simple solution although the same benefit may need to be applied to the active shield rigs.
Tanya Powers wrote:Armour rep issues?
-end cycle rep --> can't figure the initial purpose for this or any valid argument, specially with no auto regeneration like shields
-ships bonus only on self rep, they should be changed on income reps also
Those changes and a fitting reduction should make it much more viable.
|
Jojo Jackson
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 18:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
But please don't forget to adjust REMOTE armor reps when adjusting LOCAL armor reps ;).
Wouldn't help, when remote stay the way they are now. |
Tac Mannall
Defenders of Order
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 05:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:But please don't forget to adjust REMOTE armor reps when adjusting LOCAL armor reps ;).
Wouldn't help, when remote stay the way they are now.
Do remote armor reps need the same buffs as the local ones? |
To mare
Advanced Technology
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 05:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
active armor have it's perks over active shield armor tanking the main problem is active armor tanking as a whole because passive tanking is much better than active for anything that's not a 1v1 and even on 1v1 the passive tanking ship have some good chance to win.
1st the 7,5% bonus to active tanking some ships have is too low , the 5% resist of abaddon/rokh have the same effectiveness on active tanking of the 7,5% of hype and mael, plus the resist give EHP (increase that bonus at least to 10% or even 12,5%) this would make people stop passive tanking ships lice cyclone hulls and would probably make alot of gallente ship more viable to active tank
2ndshield give the bonus at the start and armor at the end, cycle time of armor reps could be reduced for a more costant hp regeneration but this would make overload much harder
3rd shield tanker have a x-l booster wich is better than large armor rep but armor tanker have 1600plate wich gives double the HP of a LSE difference between tanking systems are fine (armor tanker can fit a double or even triple rep much easier than shield tanker)
edit:
a plain boost to reppers and booster wouldnt solve the point 1 so ship with resist bonus would be always better than ship with a active tank bonus @ active tanking and imho this is stupid |
To mare
Advanced Technology
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 06:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tac Mannall wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:But please don't forget to adjust REMOTE armor reps when adjusting LOCAL armor reps ;).
Wouldn't help, when remote stay the way they are now. Do remote armor reps need the same buffs as the local ones?
no remote reps are fine
lot of people complain about the CPU cost of shield transfer but you can still fit them on many ships meant to be shield tanked.
the only boost to remote reps is to make them affected by the active tanking bonus some ships have:
greedy way, the ship with bonus recive more HP if repped by RR
altruistic way, if your ship have the active tank bonus you rep more hp to the others
the 1st one is better but the second fit better the description of the bonus i think |
|
|
Veryez
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:58:00 -
[21] - Quote
Simple - roll back the changes w/Revelations.
Before Revelations, active tanking was the only way to go, back then though people whined that many times they died "almost instantaneously as they jumped through a gate. They had no chance to do anything", so CCP decided that to make fights last longer, massive boosts in tanking were necessary. For those not around, I believe t1 hulls got 20% boosts in EHP, plates and shield extenders got 50% boosts and rigs were added. Such that active tanking a ship became very foolish indeed. As an interesting aside Hybrid weapons were the FoTM as they were the only ones w/enough DPS to chew through all that EHP before the next DT.
Many, many people warned that the HP boosts were insane and grossly OP, but CCP was undeterred. Now almost 6 years later Lasers and Projectiles have been boosted to compensate for the EHP boosts in Revelations, Hybrids are due some loving (since they weren't that bad until the speed nerfs), though active tanking is still a relic.
Well we could remove rigs from the game as a start, though I suspect that would break quite a few fittings (and CCP would never do that anyway). So here's a more realistic solution, reduce plates and shield extenders HP by 50% (i.e. cut their relevations HP boosts by 1/2) and remove the stacking nerf on shield and armor resist modules (both active and passive, don't worry hitting 100% resistance is still impossible). You must make a high resist/active tanking ship last as long or longer than a plated ship (preferrably longer since active tanking uses cap) under combat conditions. Right now it doesn't. Plates/extenders are simply too good.
That's where I'd start. |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
139
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 10:17:00 -
[22] - Quote
HP increases were added because population increase (and focused fire) made fights last seconds rather then minutes and has nothing whatsoever to do with active tanking. Since population has increased even further (times two at least) your suggestion of removing the HP boosts would do diddly squat, would certainly not have any effect on active tank viability.
Buffer and active tanking is not supposed to be interchangeable, they each have a preferred/optimal place in Eve. Problem today is that while dps, gang size, RR and EHP has been increased over the years, local repair has not been moved one iota .. it is the old cast iron bicycle in a modern day carbon-fibre bicycle race. The difference has become so pronounced that buffering is now preferable to active tanking in all scenarios, only a few frigate match-ups still see reppers on a regular basis.
Massive boost to the burst ability of local repair for a limited duration (heat can be used as balance) will make it significantly better than buffering on the small scale without touching the areas of Eve where it is not supposed to be in the first place. |
Jojo Jackson
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 13:06:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tac Mannall wrote:Jojo Jackson wrote:But please don't forget to adjust REMOTE armor reps when adjusting LOCAL armor reps ;).
Wouldn't help, when remote stay the way they are now. Do remote armor reps need the same buffs as the local ones?
To be honest I don't know ;).
But they both should work the same way (for example rep at start of cycle). Wouldn't be the first time, when one thing is changed but others are untouched even if they are brothers (like local & remote armor rep).
Was more a reminder: don't forget to make same work similar if they aren't after a change ;). |
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 16:13:00 -
[24] - Quote
Raven Ether wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Two of the big reasons active shield tanking is preferred in PvP over active armor tanking is due to the shield booster's short cycle time and the fact that shield boosters give their effect as soon as it is activated (armor reps take effect after the cycle is completed). Just fix this and it should be fine.
I've always heard that active armour tanking is much more cap efficient than active shield tanking. That for a shield tanker to get 2 HP per 1 capacitor point is a great achievement, whereas for an amour anker such a ratio is routine.
Am I misinformed?
|
Tac Mannall
Defenders of Order
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 16:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Salpad wrote:
I've always heard that active armour tanking is much more cap efficient than active shield tanking. That for a shield tanker to get 2 HP per 1 capacitor point is a great achievement, whereas for an amour anker such a ratio is routine.
Am I misinformed?
No I think that's what I've heard too and honestly what drew me towards armor tanking when I started Eve.
I think Hirana Yoshida has a good idea in giving armor reps the ability to 'burst activate'. Maybe have Active Armor hulls have a bonus to heat dissipation for their reppers? Less heat buildup would mean shorter rep cycles and amounts for just that much longer and might give an edge in a fight. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
DarkSide.
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 17:09:00 -
[26] - Quote
Salpad wrote:Raven Ether wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Two of the big reasons active shield tanking is preferred in PvP over active armor tanking is due to the shield booster's short cycle time and the fact that shield boosters give their effect as soon as it is activated (armor reps take effect after the cycle is completed). Just fix this and it should be fine. I've always heard that active armour tanking is much more cap efficient than active shield tanking. That for a shield tanker to get 2 HP per 1 capacitor point is a great achievement, whereas for an amour anker such a ratio is routine. Am I misinformed?
You are.
1) Note shield compensation skill
2) Bear in mind that 1 SB = 2 armour reppers (in terms of HP/sec) and given that one sigle armour repper is a joke, we should toss in a SBA for shield tankers to make our comparison equal in terms of slots used.
So at the end of the day shield tank is just as cap-efficient as amour tank is. On top of that it has an option of using Crystals.
Finally, deadspace shield boosters are MUCH better than plain tech2, while it's not the case for armour repairers - centus X-type is merely like 150% of tech2.
2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is"
2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?"
Nice progress, guys. |
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 17:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
one could also make rep amount bonuses apply to received reps. also, since the regenerative plating is seldomly used, it could give a bonus to reppers in addition to its armor increase (maybe make the rep amount bonus not apply to capitals).
--
Please like me, I'm an attention w*ore. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |