EVE Search - Feasible Solution to BC Passive Tanking

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Feasible Solution to BC Passive Tanking

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
TimMc Phoenix Inc	Posted - 2007.05.23 17:00:00 - [1] Basically, - Add an XL Shield Extender which uses 750W (giving 3000 hp at T1 and 4000 hp at T2 [About same as armour plating]) and so meaning it can only be placed on Battleships feasibly. - Make all shield extenders increase the Signature Radius of your ship (or reduce capacitor, or something). - Increase recharge rates on all Battlecruisers to 1750 secs since their shield strength is alot more than cruisers which have 1250 sec recharge time. - Make T2 require level 5 in its skill for shields, not level 4 which can be reached easily. ...Because right now, my Drake and Myrmidon (both Passive) can tank better than my Dominix and Raven (both Active) and that just isn't right for ships costing 2 or 3 times more.
Random Caldari	Posted - 2007.05.23 17:08:00 - [2] I heard there is already a shield recharge rate nerf on the way. Its hardly needed imo. If you passive tank a ship you have to basically use all slots to make it any good. So hard to break tank yes , but no firepower to speak of or tackling ability. How many slots do you use for your better passive drake tank compared to the number of slots used for the active raven tank ? Shame to see this get nerfed imo , It was one set up that could be fairly imune to nos domi.
Valandril Caldari Reiketsu. Hitchhiker's Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.23 17:16:00 - [3] Originally by: Random Caldari I heard there is already a shield recharge rate nerf on the way. Its hardly needed imo. If you passive tank a ship you have to basically use all slots to make it any good. So hard to break tank yes , but no firepower to speak of or tackling ability. How many slots do you use for your better passive drake tank compared to the number of slots used for the active raven tank ? Shame to see this get nerfed imo , It was one set up that could be fairly imune to nos domi. Issue is that passivetanked drake tank dps setup bs and this is simple wrong, also there was no counter for it. OT: Passive tanks are getting nerfed already, they also already add signature radius and there is no need of xl shield extender. --- Cheap paint ftw
TimMc Phoenix Inc	Posted - 2007.05.23 17:26:00 - [4] I do agree that Passive Tanking is overpowered, but I dont think it should be removed and I do think that battleships should be able to do it. Passive Tanking also should have some way of being useless in PvP, if that was possible.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2007.05.23 19:44:00 - [5] Passive tanks haven't been an issue before the drake was introduced. The Myrmidon simply has more med and low slots than all the other BCs. Makes you think.. It's the combination of cap-less weapons and too many slots that makes this an issue. Oh, and rigs of course.. Let's look at some numbers, very simple ones. Like a shield-quotient (shield/recharge). Thorax: 1.22 Megathron: 2.48 Now you'd come to think that the Myrmidon would be positioned in between, right? Not exactly.. Myrmidon: 3.12 The same with Caldari ships. Caracal: 1.25 Raven: 3.0 Drake: 4.37 My suggestion: 1900 sec. recharge time for the BCs. Result would be Myrmidon: 2.05 Drake: 2.87 As you can see that's not even right in between cruiser and battleship, but more on the battleship's side. Thus, a rather good-natured balance measure. No it's not a nerf. It's balance. _________________________________ - People are people wherever you go -
Drizit Amarr	Posted - 2007.05.23 19:54:00 - [6] Edited by: Drizit on 23/05/2007 19:55:02 OMG, why don't CCP just nerf everything and we'll all go out and see who can jettison their cargo the fastest? New orders guys. Since we don't have any weapons or armour worth jack, we're going to war with cargo. Load up your jetcans and we'll see who can lag the system fastest The one with most jet cans out by the time we need 20 minutes to move due to lag is the winner. --
Yamichi Wiggin Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.23 20:12:00 - [7] The Passive tank makes sense. It's a good answer to the fact that you can fit two armor reps at once. You can't use two shield boosts at once. So as an armor tank you have the ability to put something out there that takes a HUGE beating for a short time. perfect for a blasterthron. Shield tanks have the option of taking less damage but over a much longer time. It's how it's designed to work. Look at the names of warfare links. Armor tanks get called skirmish (short fierce battle) warfare. Shield tanks get Siege (long, drawn out, calculated battle) warfare. The shields are designed (read ship descriptions) to take smaller dps over a longer time. Armor is designed to take higher dps over a shorter time. So a passive tank makes sense. It fits the story. The game mechanics work. If you don't like that a nosidomi can't break my drake tank, use guns. use drones. SHOOT me, and don't NOS me. as for the drake tanking better than the Raven... that's true for large caliber weapons. But the advantage is the Raven for DPS. A Raven with a target painter can wtfpwn a drake. A drake with a TP can't really do that to a raven. The role of the BC is to take a huge beating and protect BS from small ships. That's what the ship is for... so basically- you're requesting nerfs on a ship that is performing its role exceptionally well. So should we nerf the missile ROF on a cerberus because it's just too mean? ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body. There is no love in fear
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2007.05.24 04:54:00 - [8] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 24/05/2007 04:56:55 So you really think BCs running lvl4 missions, doing lvl3's semi AFK and being immune to energy management/Nos is balanced and fine? While at least two of the ships of that class can't do that? Come on. It's a given fact that multiplayer-games need balancing. MMO(RP)Gs in particular. CCP will never be able to lean back 'because things are fine the way they are'. Perhaps if they don't change anything or introduce new content.. Trolling and blanket statements without arguments won't change that. I don't know about everyone else, but I prefer a well balanced and option-rich game instead of a fotm-ridden powergaming fest. _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well.. -
Tohmu Blackwing	Posted - 2007.05.24 11:27:00 - [9] The problem to the proposed nerf to shield recharge is that it takes away the only real advantage that a Caldari ship has. Tanking. In PvP, missiles are severely handicapped. This means that most Caldari ships get pushed into PVE. This nerf not only handicaps us in PVE, but it completely invalidates any use of the Drake in PVP. It has **** for DPS. It is slower than Minnie BSes (partially joking), it has a signature the size of a moon... The only thing a Drake can really do well in PVP is tank. Take that away and you screw over BOTH of the Caldari BCs. (The Ferox is already useless) It is being done to appease the people who can't solo a Drake in many of their most common setups. Wow. When do I get a chance to have the same kind of dev-love so that I can solo a blasterthron in a missile boat? Does anyone know if the nerf is targeted at ALL ships - all recharge rates, or just the Drake?
Eleana Tomelac Gallente	Posted - 2007.05.24 12:00:00 - [10] Everyone around me (and they're not all caldaris, and some are crap with missiles too) is buying a drake for PvE... Seems like we're more and more falling in the stereotype "caldari for PvE, gallente & minmatar for PvP and Amarr is useless"... I think it really sucks, your ship setup should define what you can do, not just the origin of the ship! -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Happy owner of a Vexor Navy Issue and few ishkurs. The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
Camilo Cienfuegos Caldari EP0CH	Posted - 2007.05.25 19:57:00 - [11] Quote: In PvP, missiles are severely handicapped. This means that most Caldari ships get pushed into PVE. Take the Crow as an example. Few would argue that it's not the finest example of an interceptor (a true pvp ship ever there were), and noone in their right mind would fit anything other than rockets/missile onto it. You're right though, shield tanking needs some pvp love and armour needs some pve love. How to do this is quite simple: XL Shield Extender - high requirement so it cannot be fitted to anything smaller than a battlecruiser, and even then with severe penalties to damage. XL Armour Reparier - it's time. We all use dual reps as is, so please stop this madness and bring in that missing module! The important thing to remember is that shields are only too good at PVE, and are not overpowered in PVP. Hence, the simple solution is not to mess with the ships and modules (leave that to the players, as in my opinion that's half the fun of the game) but to mess with the NPC pirates: 1) Boost damage. Give them extra damage types, for example if guristas did more EM damage it'd severely deplete the effectiveness of these passive tanks, given that EM is the most difficult to effectively tank 2) Random spawns. Whilst it's guristas that inhabit most of the north, why shouldn't there be "visitors" in these regions? What's stopping the Angel Cartel from heading up on a tour of the galaxy? 3) More NOS. Not nearly enough rats use vamps/nos. Whilst this wouldn't have any effect on passive tanks, it would in my opinion provide some much needed balancing and do what needs to be done - make NPCing more difficult! The changes that were made to missions recently have been good, but it's still a cakewalk for a caldari. Perhaps some of the above may help?
Yamichi Wiggin Caldari Rising Knights SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:11:00 - [12] I think my biggest problem with this thread is that balance is necessary but not an exact mirror image. It seems like every time something is found that does a job particularly well, somebody wants it nerfed to be more like something else. There should be differences. The ships, systems, shields, ammo, weapons, etc are all "designed" by different races. They should be... different. The Drake is the perfect design if the Caldari are looking to start a fight with the Gallente. It doesn't need cap and it can take a beating over a long period. If the Caldari are looking to fight the Gallente (read the backstory), they are well equipped to do it now. The ships aren't supposed to be the same. They should be different. My drake takes a beating but doesn't dish it out. My 'cane isn't nearly as durable a tank but it hammers out a nasty beating and does it fast. Bottom line to me- armor has strengths. Armor has weaknesses. Shields have strengths. Shields have weaknesses. They aren't they same and they never should be. I'm not saying things don't need to change. They do. I just don't think passive tanks are on that list of stuff that is a problem. ------ Pain is weakness leaving the body. There is no love in fear
Camilo Cienfuegos Caldari EP0CH	Posted - 2007.05.25 20:36:00 - [13] Quote: It seems like every time something is found that does a job particularly well, somebody wants it nerfed to be more like something else. Couldn't agree more. The nerfbat should be the final solution to any problem, not the first. Take the nanobattleships: these have been nerfed into near extinction (only the domi remains), and it saddens me deeply. They may have been too powerful, but now they're completely gone. I bring this up because it ties in directly to the discussion: Armour by it's nature would render a ship heavy and slow, whereas shields add to the signature radius, making them easier to target and hit but without penalising manouverability - a wonderful balancing act given that all speed modules are low fittings. So why aren't there more Caldari speed-fitted ships? The Nerfbat. Don't take the nerfbat to shields. Please.
Aki Yamato	Posted - 2007.05.25 21:00:00 - [14] Heh I agree that passive tanking needs some tweaking, however not on caldary ship. Every small kid knows that best caldari passive tanking ship (vulture) is far benoyd non caldari faction BSs and evil Myrmidon with 780sh/sec (+ heavy drones WTF) Simply passive tanked drake with virtualy no DMG and sig radius of small moon is not issue. Low slots are evil ! BIG GUN BIG FUTURE
Gangrenous Khan	Posted - 2007.05.25 21:53:00 - [15] http://goonfleet.com/open_letter_to_CCP.html Dear CCP, Once again, it seems that several of your employees have been up to no good. We'll get into the details a little later, but the highlights are quite juicy: CCP employees abusing their roles to join player corporations and give themselves director access, RP-events being rigged and what I really thought we were over, further fraternization between your employees and members of BoB and the subsequent cover-up. These latter two events actually stem from the same source, a former ISD member. Let us begin with CCP Sharkbait joining the corporation "DarkStar 1" and giving himself director access. This was not preceded by a customer service request that would in any shape, way or form require a CCP employee to join the corporation. Less then one minute after joining the corporation, he added the role "Director" to himself, roughly fourteen minutes later, he leaves the corporation and surrenders the role. * http://images.goonfleet.com/images/ccp/2007.05.25.15.19.48.jpg * http://images.goonfleet.com/images/ccp/CCP%20charkbait%202.png Upon learning of this, corporate officers from DarkStar 1 immediately filed a petition in an effort to discover the reasons for this. This petition was promptly deleted and CCP Sharkbait would not respond to in-game conversations. Why would a CCP Employee ever join a corporation without being asked to do so or any prior communication indicating that this would take place? Why was the petition filed by officials from DarkStar 1 deleted with no response or reason?
Drizit Amarr	Posted - 2007.05.26 08:56:00 - [16] You want a tweak to passive tanking but that only affects shields. If that happens, I will be the first to start a thread asking for a passive armor mod. The shield recharges and you can add mods to speed that up but armor tankers have no passive armor regen, let alone anything that increases it. Shield tankers alreay have it easy, shield boosters have a mod to increase the boost effectiveness. There is no armor repair booster mod. All a shield tanker has to do is sit out of range for a while and the shield will repair itself while the cap recharges as well. Armor tankers have to fit a mod which drains cap. Any boost to shield passive tanks will completely overpower shield tankers. --
Camilo Cienfuegos Caldari EP0CH	Posted - 2007.05.27 11:20:00 - [17] Quote: All a shield tanker has to do is sit out of range for a while and the shield will repair itself while the cap recharges as well. Armor tankers have to fit a mod which drains cap. Given that a microwarpdrive uses a midslot and to use an effective passive tank ALL midslots are used (and dependant on the ship, some of the lows too), it is unreasonable to say that "all" a shield tanking ship has to do is "sit out of range" to recharge. It's correct only in the technical sense - it's simply not practical. Otherwise you're correct - some module balancing is needed between shields and armour. I like the differences between them, but I'd like the gulf to be widened. I'd like to see armour with better resistances, I'd like to see XL armour repairers and a lowslot Armour Repair Accelerator with similar effects to the shield boost amplifier. I want to see these problems alleviated through tweaking up of one side's modules, not by taking the nerfbat. Setting up a passive shield tank is something that takes time, as remember if you get it wrong there is NO way to save yourself... and you'll fall like a sack of potatoes as soon as the shields fail.
Drizit Amarr	Posted - 2007.05.28 12:10:00 - [18] Edited by: Drizit on 28/05/2007 12:10:10 Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Quote: All a shield tanker has to do is sit out of range for a while and the shield will repair itself while the cap recharges as well. Armor tankers have to fit a mod which drains cap. Given that a microwarpdrive uses a midslot and to use an effective passive tank ALL midslots are used (and dependant on the ship, some of the lows too), it is unreasonable to say that "all" a shield tanking ship has to do is "sit out of range" to recharge. It's correct only in the technical sense - it's simply not practical. Maybe in PVP but PVE is a different matter entirely. Once you know the sequence, (which is easy since missions are repeated so often), you aggro one bunch and take them out. Sit out of range since the others won't aggro until you close in on them. For passive shield tank, both shield and cap regen together so it's far less time before you can get back into the fight. Armor tank means burning loads of cap while you sit out of range and then waiting even longer until the cap regens. Maybe MWD does use a mid slot that would otherwise be used for passive shield tanking but any Amarr knows that you end up using loads of cap rechargers because CCP decided to make energy weapons eat cap for breakfast. Low slots used for armor hardeners are lost due to the necessity for cap rechargers. Either that or a cap booster in mids which means sometimes you have to make the decision to use a AB or a webber but you often can't use both. Amarr cruisers are often flying with borked setups due to the necessity to keep the cap from running out once the hardeners/reppers and guns are active together. Dual reppers make the matter even worse and a repair accelerator would balance this a little, a passive repper would help a lot and passive armor tanks would then be common on Amarr ships. As for 'armor tanking is for short term engagements'. That's rubbish I can take on lvl3 Massive Attack in a HAC with 3 n-type active hardeners, a T2 DC and a T2 repper and tank the top level of it (where the Overlord is) all day without moving and my cap sits happily on 20%. Four beam weapons from the battlestation and several ships firing missiles at me as well as energy weapons and I can completely ignore all of them and go make a coffee. With Autocannons or Blasters, I can take them out with no problem with no drone assistance but with energy weapons, my cap is gone in an instant so no more tank, I have to bug out even with drones helping me. I agree with others that Amarr sucks in this respect. However, it just shows that armor tanking can be used for long term punishment, it just depends if you stick to the weapons of your own race or not as to whether you can dish out punishment as well. What gave passive tanks so much more power was the cap usage changes made to all weapons except Energy that meant other cap sucking mods could be used heavily (MWD's etc) for non-energy weapon users. Passive tanks should be used by Amarr since the weapons use so much cap but Amarr ships armor tank instead. Therefore it's always a tradeoff between fighting and tanking and MWD's are always out of the question. --
Leeluvv Caldari	Posted - 2007.05.28 16:02:00 - [19] If the Drake is so awesome at PvE, why does everyone use Ravens? Lee == Sig to follow
Sun Crusher	Posted - 2007.06.03 21:44:00 - [20] i don't see any point in changing more than -5% rechargerate for BC t2
MotherMoon	Posted - 2007.06.04 00:11:00 - [21] I agree with XL shield extenders shield extenders allready increase sig radius that all ssaid try passive shielding a battleship it's much fun and more powerful than a BC the drake can be nosed to the point where it's gun won't fire the drake can be targeting jamed the drake can be senor damped the drake can be enegry neuted the drake has no dmg mods it can't break anythings tank the drake is soooooo slow doing lvl 4 missions isn't pro*****ble even if it's possible I agree with armor tanking having some issues.. I believe that shield should have less hp than armor no matter what ship your flying I mean armor plating just screams better than shields when it come to different types of damge. so along with the EAM nerf they should lower the cpu and powergrid needs of all armor plates.
Bradstone BRADNETT	Posted - 2007.06.04 04:56:00 - [22] Edited by: Bradstone on 04/06/2007 05:01:02 I must admit it seems to be that many people don't like a new Caldari ship when they see one. I know that Caldari maybe the biggest member pool in the game, but it doesn't mean they should be the most nerf out race in the game. From what i have been reading, say for a moment that all caldari battle cruisers and command ships are dealt an passively shield tank nerf. That means that a simple 3 year mission runner such as myself in a passively tanked command ship would have to suffer switching to active tank because someone in a far off pirate pvp battle couldn't bring down the tank of a drake. Seems completely unfair that one persons game is made different by someone doing something completely different. I wasn't happy with the drake at first i admit, i heard 7 launcher slots and went mad, how could a T1 BC out gun a hard trained for command ship, in the end it turned out OK when with the Nighthawk was given a ROF bonus, does that mean its going to be taken away because someone in a battleship some place far away couldn't see past its missile fire? Battleships and Battle Cruisers have different roles, the Battle Cruiser was made to protect the larger ships from cruiser to frig size ships, and you would guess there would be more smaller and cruiser size ships out there, so it has to be able to tank. Take that away and you have your self a mid-way rust bucket, a ship going through a midlife crisis of not knowing what to be lol Maybe i am wrong but just wanted to place my 2 isk on the table "As a great man once said - Its a game"
Tempus Fugitive Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2007.06.04 16:16:00 - [23] I think I'm more irate that armor tanking sucks (in pve) more than I am that passive tanking is OPed. It just seems that with armor tanking I still have to dedicate every mid and low slot to tanking and still get overwhelmed often, where passive shield tanking is safer and requires almost no skills. My opinion is as some others above, help out armor tanks, and balance the Drake (in particular). ---- And no I'm not an alt.
Drizit Amarr	Posted - 2007.06.04 17:45:00 - [24] True. a large number of my mids are taken up with cap rechargers to keep an armor tank going. Along with a cap recharge rig. Yes I can tank all day and still deal out damage. However, my damage is reduced due to having all the lows dedicated to the tanking so there's no damage mods. Lasers suck at dealing damage an damage mods are a necessity before you even consider PVP. Even in PVE, it takes a fair amount of time to kill a cruiser. The passive shield doesn't need a MWD really, a full rack of damage mods in lows and the rails can eat NPC's for lunch. Nothing should ever get close enough for you to need to MWD away from it. --
Camilo Cienfuegos Caldari EP0CH	Posted - 2007.06.04 18:07:00 - [25] Quote: The passive shield doesn't need a MWD really, a full rack of damage mods in lows and the rails can eat NPC's for lunch. Nothing should ever get close enough for you to need to MWD away from it. For NPCs you're right, but just like the damage control, the mwd is almost essential for PVP. If you heard the last live dev blog you'll know that shield recharge rates have been/are being "tweaked", so a passive shield tank will require you to sacrifice low slots for shield power relays anyway, which in turn kills your cap recharge rate. Passive tanking is the only benefit to shields at present - don't kill it anymore, please! -- Tractor Beams Caldari Buff

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.