| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dramiel Vans
   |
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:16:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Dramiel Vans on 05/05/2007 13:15:17
We all know how obscenely powerful passive shield tanks are, even you people who use them know that they're overpowered so before you start don't flame.
This thread is intended to pull ideas together about how to fix passive shield tanking in a constructive manner.
First things first, what is wrong with passive shield tanking? Now super passive shield tanking on a battleship is fair enough if that is how you wish to defend your ship. A geddon having a hard time taking down a passive shield tanked scorpion or domi for example; fine.
But when a fully maxed out gank-geddon takes minutes to take down a drake, that's if it can even take it down at all something is wrong. A video of this can be found here (again if you wish to dispute this video do it in that thread please): Linkage
So how about some ideas? Passive shield tanks are all about increasing your natural shield regen combined with resists to outrepair your attackers dps. The trouble with battlecruiser sized passive shield tanks is that they can accomodate shield modules designed to be fitted on battleships. Fitting 1600mm plates to cruisers was nerfed and so should fitting large extenders to cruisers be.
So here's my idea. The natural regen of shields needs to be enough to tank damage of the same ship class in a battle, but that that of a higher ship class for as long as minutes, this is just ridiculous.
When fitting things such as large extenders to a ship the shields gain a boost of hp but the natural shield regen stays the same. This is fine on battleships, however when oversized extenders are fitted to smaller ships the shield regeneration time should also be increased. Not drastically but enough that for example a maxed out gank geddon can kill a drake in less than 5 mins  . The shield recharge increase shouldn't be so drastic however that it removes the ability to passive tank other ships of the same class. For example; a passive tanked drake should be able to tank a tanked harbinger, but not a gank geddon.
This increase in shield regen time can be explained with the fact that fitting battleship sized modules onto a cruiser or battlecruiser requires a lot of that ships core energy supply to keep it running, even if it does not take cap away from the ships active module reserve (it is passive). This is compensated for by taking energy away from certain systems such as those that recharge the shields. I.e. You can't have your cake and eat it, you want obscene ammounts of hitpoints on a cruiser or battlecruiser then you have to sacrafice something else.
As the situation is at the moment with passive tanking every slot you have goes into your tank and it is guarenteed that you can tank pretty much anything for an extended period (I've heard stories of drakes tanking carriers long enough to kill off some fighter drones). Yet if you put every slot you have into a gank setup you are still not guarenteed to kill your target.
Any other ideas out there?
|
Marquis Dean
Energy.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:17:00 -
[2]
Here's something constructive:
Post this in an existing thread and stop clogging the first page.
kthx
---
 Originally by: Tista
i dont like you much but i'm going to agree with you on that.
|
Testy McTester
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:24:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Testy McTester on 05/05/2007 13:20:47
Originally by: Marquis Dean
Here's something constructive:
Post this in an existing thread and stop clogging the first page.
kthx
Yes very constructive .
There is 1 other passive shield tank topic on the first and second pages of this forum and that thread is a three page whine about a video.
If you can tell me why a single thread on a topic not covered on the first or second pages is 'clogging' then please do.
Why even bother posting in the first place? You just look like a troll. I swear this game used to have an age rating of 15 and not 5.
|
Dramiel Vans
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:25:00 -
[4]
Stupid alt ^^
|
La Pounania
Minmatar
Majestic Knights
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:37:00 -
[5]
passive tanks used to be realy weak, now they fixed it, ok some ships went from paper bag to a hard ship to kill. but not even a gank geddon is made to kill ships by just looking at it.
because even how hard it will be 1vs1, if it gets ganked like 99% of the kills in eve are now, it will just die as fast as anything else.
people just think to much this is just a game ;)
______________________________________________________ |
smallgreenblur
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:43:00 -
[6]
Originally by: La Pounania
passive tanks used to be realy weak, now they fixed it, ok some ships went from paper bag to a hard ship to kill. but not even a gank geddon is made to kill ships by just looking at it.
because even how hard it will be 1vs1, if it gets ganked like 99% of the kills in eve are now, it will just die as fast as anything else.
people just think to much this is just a game ;)
Not very constructive either. If nobody pointed out overpowered setups and tried to come up with solutions they would probably stay in game, and we would end up with everybody flying the same thing (nano bs anybody?).
I'll admit passive shield tanking is a little overpowered these days. How about reducing the bonus large extenders give and introducing an XL extender that a drake will hardly be able to jam one of on, let alone 3 or 4.
The op's suggestion is very difficult to implement since it involved a module having a different effect on one ship than on another...
sgb
|
Gerod Theron
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:50:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 13:50:03
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 13:49:13
how is it overpowereds?the number of slot needed for a passive shield tank is absurd. on the drake it takes all 6 mids and all 4 lows aswell as all 3 rigs slots. that 10 fitting slots.crist. so what is being said is that anytime a ship deticates itself to ONE thing and sacrifices EVERYTHING else that it needs to be nerfed? becouse thats what passive shield tanking is.it turns the ship into a fangless chunk of hard to kill metal.no dps,no e war nothing cept shields. dosnt seem to overpowered to me.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:54:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gerod Theron
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 13:49:13
how is it overpowereds?the number of slot needed for a passive shield tank is absurd. on the drake it takes all 6 mids and all 4 lows aswell as all 3 rigs slots. that 10 fitting slots.crist. so what is being said is that anyrtime a ship deticates itself to ONE thing and sacrifices EVERYTHING else that it needs to be nerfed? becose thats what passive shield tanking is.it turns the ship into a fangless chunk of hard to kill metal.no dps,no e war nothing cept shields. dosnt seem to overpowered to me.
Lets remove the stacking nerf on damage mods then?
---
Eve Wiki | Eve Tribune |
smallgreenblur
Minmatar
Wreckless Abandon
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 13:57:00 -
[9]
pwned ^^
sgb
|
Gerod Theron
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 14:02:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 14:04:15
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 14:03:25
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Gerod Theron
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 13:49:13
how is it overpowereds?the number of slot needed for a passive shield tank is absurd. on the drake it takes all 6 mids and all 4 lows aswell as all 3 rigs slots. that 10 fitting slots.crist. so what is being said is that anyrtime a ship deticates itself to ONE thing and sacrifices EVERYTHING else that it needs to be nerfed? becose thats what passive shield tanking is.it turns the ship into a fangless chunk of hard to kill metal.no dps,no e war nothing cept shields. dosnt seem to overpowered to me.
Lets remove the stacking nerf on damage mods then?
plus damage is different. i mean with a passive drake shure it takes for ever to break the tank but in 1v1 a passive drake is no threat what so ever. at all. none. thier is absolutely no damage coming from it.really what is it good for? the olny people crying are gate campers who cant kill it in 2 secs.
is thier a stacking ne4rf for plates?
|
Marquis Dean
Energy.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 14:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gerod Theron
is thier a stacking ne4rf for plates?
No.
---
Originally by: Tista
i dont like you much but i'm going to agree with you on that.
|
Matiaj
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 14:14:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Matiaj on 05/05/2007 14:14:18
I think a difference needs to be made between "buffer tanks" and "recharge tanks".
What people complain about is "recharge tanks" : some extenders + lots of SPRs + recharge rate rigs, resulting in not excessive shield amount, but absolutely obscene recharge rate. Without a huge dps you're not gonna break this tank, ever.
They do not complain about "buffer tanks" : some extenders or plates + shield or armor amount rigs, resulting in huge shield or armor amounts but little or no recharge rate. Even a low dps can break this tank, it's just gonna take a long time to get through all these hps.
Nerfing shield extenders would hurt buffer tanks as hard, or even harder, than recharge tanks. That is really not needed, and would only result in everybody going active. Yay for diversity.
Honestly I don't care about "recharge tanks" : I don't fly them, and if you've got one against you, just ignore it or damp it into oblivion since it usually doesn't have proplulsion mods, kill all his friends and leave.
But if a nerf needs to be done, it should nerf "recharge tanks" without killing "buffer tanks". Solutions :
- stacking penalties between SPRs and recharge rigs
- increasing battlecruisers shield recharge time
But please don't nerf buffer tanks, they don't need a nerf.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 14:15:00 -
[13]
"First things first, what is wrong with passive shield tanking?"
As a Drake pilot (mostly missions), I can tell you that yes, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if I set my Drake for all-out-tank, it has indeed have an insane tankable DPS. And you can sacrifice some of it to gain complete NOS immunity (just swap hardners for amplifiers, you wouldn't have much capacitor to power actives anyway if you go all SPR).
Still, that insane tank comes with a heavy price... you use up ALL possible slots for tank.
All of them, mids, lows, rigs. Only then can you talk about an insane tank.
In other words, yes, you get a crazy tank, but then again you have the speed and agility of a brick, no ewar capability, you are highly susceptible to incoming jam/damp... and of course, a pretty crappy DPS output on the Drake (less so on a Myrmidon, but then again not sitting next to your target so you can scoop/redeploy drones can be deadly).
"So here's my idea. The natural regen of shields needs to be enough to tank damage of the same ship class in a battle, but that that of a higher ship class for as long as minutes, this is just ridiculous."
You know, there's a big problem in your logic.
And that problem is that a gank-battlecruiser has a higher DPS as a tank-battleship, and that a tanked battlecruiser hardly has the DPS of a gank cruiser, heck, I've seen gank AFs with equal or higher DPS.
The DPS output of a ship doesn't increase significantly with size, it's a lot more dependant on fitings than ship size.
So your logic starts breaking up from the get-go... with regards to "how good should a passive tank be".
___
Instead of focusing on "omg passive tanking is broken" (which IS NOT), you should focus on the TWO ships (out of almost 200 available) that make passive tanking ridiculous... namely, Drake and Myrmidon.
For the Drake, the solution is simple... remove some of its powergrid.
That makes it impossible to fit an uberpassive shieldtank due to the fact it won't be able to fit 3 large extenders anymore. Two large entenders for max-skilled chars, one for the rest, that's about enough.
For the Myrmidon however, the same solution does not apply so easily, as the Myrmidon can sacrifice all highs to get an obertank. But then again, a small grid reduction wouldn't hurt much here either, at least you can't pump it full of NOS and extenders.
_
MySkills | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
Matiaj
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 14:41:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Matiaj on 05/05/2007 14:40:37
Originally by: Akita T
For the Drake, the solution is simple... remove some of its powergrid.
That makes it impossible to fit an uberpassive shieldtank due to the fact it won't be able to fit 3 large extenders anymore. Two large entenders for max-skilled chars, one for the rest, that's about enough.
Do you realize that reducing powergrid would hurt gank-drakes MUCH MORE than tank-drakes ?
Tank-drakes will just fit 2 extenders + 1 shield recharger instead of 3 extenders.
On the other hand, gank-drakes will be totally screwed since fitting 7 HAMs + mwd + some tank is already a total pain and requires dedicating at least one low slot to a powergrid mod.
HAMs are already borderline useless for caldari players since most caldari ships are slow and have no powergrid. And you want to prevent caldari players to fit HAMs even more ? Bleh.
|
Badhands
Gallente
DarkStar 1
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 14:51:00 -
[15]
The only thing wrong with passive tanking is that battlecruisers have the same shield recharge time as cruisers. Their base recharge time needs to be increased to somewhere between cruisers and battleships.
.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 15:27:00 -
[16]
Well, either way, the problem is NOT with passive shield tanking in general, but with certain ships (ship classes) in particular.
More precisely, it's a problem with Battlecruisers and Command Ships, not with passive shield tanks.
And yes, indeed, the simpler solution would be to just increase shield recharge time for BCs and CSs a bit.
In other words, switch from 1250 seconds base recharge to, say, 1500 seconds or even 1600 seconds.
That would mean a 20% (or 28%) longer recharge time, therefore also a weaker passive recharge rate (16.6% or 21.8% weaker).
_
MySkills | Module/Rig stacknerfing explained |
evil penguin
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:25:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Badhands
The only thing wrong with passive tanking is that battlecruisers have the same shield recharge time as cruisers. Their base recharge time needs to be increased to somewhere between cruisers and battleships.
Totally agree. The Drake is one of my favourite ships(I only fly Caldari) but I still agree its passive tank is a bit over the top. Changing the base recharge time a bit seems like a good solution.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:29:00 -
[18]
Quote:
We all know how obscenely powerful passive shield tanks are
-> Sorry, but no, i don't know that.
Quote:
, even you people who use them know that they're overpowered
-> No, they are not overpowered.
Quote:
so before you start don't flame.
This thread is intended to pull ideas together about how to fix passive shield tanking in a constructive manner.
-> The thread headline sounds like a whine for nerving the passive shield tank, not pulling ideas together
...
Quote:
But when a fully maxed out gank-geddon takes minutes to take down a drake, that's if it can even take it down at all something is wrong.
-> A maxed out gank-raven has sometimes troubles to take down a tank-fitted myrmidon at all, so don't see whats wrong when the gank-geddon doesn't instapop a drake.
Quote:
So how about some ideas?
-> I don't see the need of ideas to nerf something that does not deserve to be nerved. Better go and ask for ideas to nerv the nos-domi or something that is really overpowered.
Quote:
... So here's my idea. The natural regen of shields needs to be enough to tank damage of the same ship class in a battle,
-> Ok fine, give the drake more dps and we both will have what we want.
Quote:
Not drastically but enough that for example a maxed out gank geddon can kill a drake in less than 5 mins .
-> It already can, except the drake pilot is using tech 2 stuff or rigs. The drake has quite high natural kinetik resistances. If an expensive tank can be instapopped by a ship using wrong damage type that would just be wrong.
Quote:
As the situation is at the moment with passive tanking every slot you have goes into your tank
-> Thats the point. To outtank a geddon you need skills being up, tech 2 spr/extenders, rigs and have no slots left for damagemods, tackeling stuff, mwd etc. Just a slow phat tank sitting there like a rock of veldspar. And you whine that you can't kill it under 5 minutes ? A drake's tank is not much better than that of a myrmidon or brutix, but it has a lower dps and can use only light drones etc. So seriously, stop whining and get a taste for ballance, gallente.
|
Kazire
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:29:00 -
[19]
so basically what you are all saying, that its ok for a ship to be able to throw out 1200+ dps, but not ok for tanks to be able to match that? Passive tanks are just as overpowered as a ship being able to throw down 1200-1400 dps. So before you start constructively flaming passive tanks, lets consider some balance issues first. A hugely passive tanked ship is very hard to kill. there really is no issue in this. Just as there is no issue in ships throwing out large amounts of dps. Especially when you are speaking of very skill intensive command ships. Its quicker to train up for a dreadnaught than a fleet command ship.
Passive tanks are balanced. Not to mention that some of these passive tanks that you say are uber, can cost as much or more than their bs counterparts. My personal vulture costs me about 300-500m to fly. Thats the cheap version. I put t2 rigs on (which i do like to do for pvp) and you are hitting nearly 1 billion isk for undocking. I fly pretty safe in this ship, unless attacked by multiple ships, however, dps is so lacking, I cant break a ship that is tanked. Go all tank, and your no gank.
|
Bezo Maxo
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:36:00 -
[20]
I donÆt see why passive tanks should be nerfed. Does the drake have a great tank? Of course it does. But with a passive tank almost every other aspect of the ship is sub par in PvP situations. Fitting a warp disruptor weakens its tank and without room for an Afterburner/MicroWarpdrive or web most other ships can run out of scram range if they get into trouble. If your fight a lone drake itÆs hard to get in trouble because heavy missiles are most useful for their ability to select damage types in PvE situations and not there DPS in a PvP situation.
If youÆre not fighting a lone drake I'd have to ask why you are shooting at the drake when the enemy has more important ships with weaker tanks still alive?
|
lycidas mar
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:38:00 -
[21]
So is this how they begin the nerf process? continually throwing out new threads when the same thing is just 4 or 5 slots down?
Quote:
We all know how obscenely powerful passive shield tanks are
Nerf it all, lets all play in cardboard cutout ships.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari
Ore Mongers
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Dramiel Vans
We all know how obscenely powerful passive shield tanks are
Nope, they are not. NEXT.
|
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 16:47:00 -
[23]
The only reason that people think passive tanks should be nerfed is because they can't gank people and insta-pop them.
Guess what? CCP wants fights to last longer. Passive tanks are not over-powered because the ship can't do snot to your ship either because they have no DPS.
Basically you are calling for the nerf of some 4-5 ships in the game that actually do something very well but little else. Why don't you tell the truth? Come out and say it: "NERF THE DRAKE" There, I did it for you.
No one whined about the Ferox's passive tank, they just killed it. The Drake has ONE additional slot. If you can't figure out how to break it it isn't our fault. A BB can kill a passive tanked drake. A small gang of cruisers and BBs can kill a passive tanked drake. A gatecamp slaughters them. A BB has nothing to fear of a Drake. Most BCs have little to fear from a Drake. Cruisers SHOULD fear a BC that costs 5-10x their value and have problems killing it.
It isn't overpowered, its just harder to kill than you would like.
<----------->
Keiron: Quote on PvE/PvP
[i]PvE and/or PvP is not something that appeals to |
Gerod Theron
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 17:14:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 17:11:12
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 17:10:51
Edited by: Gerod Theron on 05/05/2007 17:10:31
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
The only reason that people think passive tanks should be nerfed is because they can't gank people and insta-pop them.
exactly!!!!!! a drake passive tank is useless in any pvp batle.no dps no e war ect... the power only shows it self when gate campers can not kill it in 2 seconds.
|
Jaedar Metron
Artificial Horizons
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 17:17:00 -
[25]
this is just ridicilous... Passive tanks ARE NOT overpowered. I really hope CCP manages to look at this objectively instead of just listening to the whiners 
IF however passive tnaking gets nefred, I'll want something in return.
Reduce powergrid? Give HAM launchers better range, damage and 60-80 base pg fitting.
Stacking penalty to recharge? Fine, you do that, but then I want a rof bonus to all missiles in all Caldari missile ships. Then atleast I would be able to dish out damage that is closer to the dmg the other racial BC's are dishing out.
Fix it in whatever way you damn want, but I want something in return for making it useless.
One last thing. I dont fly those "omg overpowered" passive Drakes. I fit my Drake so that my damage isnt outmatched by a gankThorax. Oh wait, it is, damn.
Oh well, atleast my tank's ok. Opps. Just got melted by a dualrepping Brutix. Damn.
Setup
7x HM II
1x MNOS
2x Invul II
1x EM II
1x Scram
1x Web
1x LSE II
2x BCS II
2x PDS II
I know some of you probably is going to find sever flaws in my rant. I'll be happy to come up with more ranting to counter your answers. bah. 
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 17:32:00 -
[26]
if it is only from two ship why not just.. increase shield regin time for each? simple solution
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 19:45:00 -
[27]
Ok here's the thing you guys who are complaining seem to have forgotten.
There were two design philosophies for battlecruisers, the british and the german versions.
Now lets compare three main points for WWI BC's and EVE's.
BRITISH GERMAN EVE
High Speed X X X
BS Guns X
BS Armour X X
Now do we notice something? Yes that's right the EVE battlecruiser is more in line with the german vessels. Germany made their battlecruisers fast by keeping smaller cruiser sized guns but increased the armour to withstand battleship guns. On the other end the british had battleship sized guns but cruiser sized armour. Both these designed allowed for reduced weights and so the increased speed.
So a battlecruiser that can withstand a battleships firepower is more than reasonable. Infact its expected, if not. Then the battlecruiser needs large guns. Now another sticking point is that the battlecruisers hitpoints are still less than a battleships. So if we are going for nautical definitions then instead of nerfing the Drake, its hitpoints actually need to be increased.
|
Waxau
Liberty Rogues
Insomnia.
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 20:04:00 -
[28]
Kk. Im a passive shield tanker quite often. My roles rarely mean that im of threat. And when i am, im in a gang. So as for being a threat - Im not. Point 1.
Point 2. It took me months to get into a vulture (the best passive shield tanker in game tbh) and even more months to train my gang skills, and tanking skills to be a decent passive tanker.
Just as a little bit of info, it took me about 4-5 months to get into a vulture, then 4 months to get my leadership + implant skills up (mindlink ftw) and then even longer for my general tanking skills. Thats nearly a year devoted to passive tanking. If its uber, theres a reason. And lets face it....what can i do with those skills? tank a lv 4? Yes. Tank a Bs or two? Yes. Kill anything? Heck no! I cant even pop npc frigs!
Dont start complaining please about passive tanking, when theres far more important things which makes eve imbalanced, and tbh, passive tanking adds variety into caldari. Lets face it, theyre a missile spamming race. But its great sometimes, when you can face a nos ship and think 'HA! Im actually useful in pvp!!!!'. Dont nerf our niche, or we'll whine for a nerf on drones(gallente) or speed (minnie) or amarr...wait..whats not already nerfed? 
Leave our tanks alone.
|
Zeonos
Amarr
Fairtrade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 20:54:00 -
[29]
and its not like a passive drake can scrambel you... a drake use all mid slots, and most low slots to have a passive tank, an ubber passive use rigs aswell. and our dps.. well not that good... and it takes skills to have a good passive tank. full tech II. its not overpowered. its not like you die vs it. you can just leave it alone.. or run off..
Latest evemon |
Bentula
|
Posted - 2007.05.05 21:09:00 -
[30]
I think the op underestimates the firepower of BCs. Some BCs can do easily more than your average BS on the dps side of things. I think its impossible to balance passive tanks in a way so that it holds against heavy hitting BCs while at the same time folding under any BS(your argument is the sizedifference).
How about throwing some numbers around, how much dps exactly do you think a passive tanked drake should be able to survive? Tbh i have no idea, 200 would be way to less, considering it dedicates all its slots to the tank. 400 is probably still less than a dual armor tank which leaves the possibility of pvp mods. 800 already sounds a bit much if it was the lowest resist.
Then again if a drake can tank over 1k dps(probably more) from a geddon it most likely is especially fitted to deal with em + therm, and imho deserves to tank it quite a while.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |