EVE Search - Passive Tank vs Active Tank

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Passive Tank vs Active Tank

» 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)
Jalif Scorpion's Sting Blades of Serenity	Posted - 2008.12.14 11:34:00 - [1] Passive Tank vs Active Tank I was wondering why people don't use active tanks anymore. Any pvp-er knows that having a passive tank is the way to go within the game. Its like if you don't have a falcon as backup, you might aswell go home. Im using the hurricane as example: (im using here an example of an armor tanker but this should be also aplied to shields) For an effective Active tank you often need: 2x Repair Systems 3x Active Hardners 1x Damage Control (And a Cap Booster to support) For a effective Passive tank you need: 1x 1600mm Plate 2x EANM 1x Damage Control A passive tank has clearly an advantage over a active tank. No cap use & less slots (including in the mid) and still more effective then a active tank (even supported with rigs). And lets not forget about the fact that the passive tank can now fit 2 extra mods in the low for extra damage. Also able to have a good active armor tank you need more skills then a passive. Active: Capacitor Skills, Passive & Active Armor skills Passive: Passive skills only How can this be balanced? By using more slots & capacitor it is still less effective then a passive tank. And lets not forget about the fact you need more skillpoints to have a good active tank. There is no balance between the amount of cap, slots & skills that you use. What if What if this was balanced? Meaning that active tank is better then passive. I would expect the following: - Amarr isn't the FOTM & it will be balanced compared to the other races. - Minmatar get their little balance that they need, because their guns don't use capacitor anyway (makes them a bit populair again. Lets face it, they are the underdogs at this very moment) - Balances the ships with an active armor tank (Gallente) - Balances the ships with an active shield tank (Caldari & Minmatar) - The people who invest time in one race get their reward back compared to those who fly FOTM. - Solo pvp might have a comeback. Its not about fitting a t2 passive tank with t2 guns anymore & then fly in a gang or fleet. Those people who truelly focus on their skills to get the best out of it will be rewarded. Futher Balancing Ships that are original armor tankers are sometimes shield tanking. I see even Harbingers fitting 2x Shield extenders on their ships. This doesn't fit in the amarrian perspective. Also I saw ishtars & myrmidons having a shieldtank. I mean... wtf? They are bloody armor tankers and not shield tankers. This kind of stuff need a balance/nerf too.
Mussaschi	Posted - 2008.12.14 11:43:00 - [2] Jalif, you are aware that there is a significant increase in sig size, therefore the pure EFT numbers don't tell the whole truth about passive tanks.
Jalif Scorpion's Sting Blades of Serenity	Posted - 2008.12.14 11:49:00 - [3] Edited by: Jalif on 14/12/2008 11:51:02 Originally by: Mussaschi Jalif, you are aware that there is a significant increase in sig size, therefore the pure EFT numbers don't tell the whole truth about passive tanks. Since when do armortanks increase in signature radius? Yeah, shield rigs & shield extenders do. But does it matter if you get webbed by 3 ships? Does the signature radius matter if you can sustain an amount of DPS? Edit: passive armor tanks go down eventually even if you just have 1 DPS. So its a good tradeoff if you check what a shieldtank is able to do compared to an armor tank. Please don't acuse me of using pure EFT numbers. I am telling this out of experiance. And don't ignore the other facts Mussaschi
eliminator2 Gallente Young Enterprise Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.12.14 12:20:00 - [4] the active v passive is ballanced atm i use both active and passive, they both give off there positive and negative and will both win if thoughs situations are kept that way any slight change and your dead, if they are "balanced" passive will be rendeder more useless since on a mega you carnt reach targets anyway but if you "balance" it it will die even faster there for no point in playing since it all fails ^^
Jalif Scorpion's Sting Blades of Serenity	Posted - 2008.12.14 13:13:00 - [5] Edited by: Jalif on 14/12/2008 13:13:06 Originally by: eliminator2 the active v passive is ballanced atm i use both active and passive, they both give off there positive and negative and will both win if thoughs situations are kept that way any slight change and your dead, if they are "balanced" passive will be rendeder more useless since on a mega you carnt reach targets anyway but if you "balance" it it will die even faster there for no point in playing since it all fails ^^ Die even faster? I don't think so... because the others will have a less of a tank too. Since the DPS of a Mega is so high, I don't think this should be a problem. Next time if you apply the balance to 1 ship, balance it also to another. Your statement you cant reach targets anyway, well, maybe the active tank is an solution? So that you can reach other targets instead of having that high mass of that plate? Basicly you are saying to me that the mega at this point fails, but its solution to make active armor tanking is "ok" but you don't see a point into it? Or do I understand you completely wrong? Noticed that active tanks are not only meaned for the BS's, also for smaller shipclasses such as cruisers.
Rin Kaeda Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.12.14 15:29:00 - [6] How would you balance different tanking methods, hmmm? I can personally already out tank a passive 1600mm plate fit Ishtar with a dualrep one, no problems at all (ie. the passive plate one will die long before I run out of cap boosters). I guess the same applies to other ships too, like Myrmidon , Hurricane etc. You forget that while in theory passive tanks look very solid, they rely on the fact that you NEED external repairs to keep your tank up or you will just die horribly. On the other hand, a well managed active tank can hold out for impressive amount of damage because of certain skills you neglected to mention: Overheating , Drugs (Exile boosters) , Implants (Slaves , Armor amount/repair time/amount) , Rigs. THOSE are the factors that push active tanks very high, compared to a passive tank that can only rely on few implants and 1 rig type. And you certainly don't need 3 active hardeners for active tank. Damage Control + 2 EANMs or DC + EANM + EXP is enough depending on ship and it's natural resistances. You claim to have experience, but still half of your OP is pure nonsense.
Stitcher Caldari Duty.	Posted - 2008.12.14 16:05:00 - [7] yeah, this is one of those things that isn't broke and doesn't need fixing. - Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain.
Lyyraia	Posted - 2008.12.14 17:09:00 - [8] Edited by: Lyyraia on 14/12/2008 17:10:30 Originally by: Jalif Also I saw ishtars & myrmidons having a shieldtank. I mean... wtf? They are bloody armor tankers and not shield tankers. This kind of stuff need a balance/nerf too. Nope... Eve is a Sandbox, where everyone can do what he wants. :D My Myrmis are Passive Shield & Active Armor tanked. The Passive Shield Myrmi tanks a whole lot of ** - 1-2 BS, doesn'T need any Cap, exept for that Invu -> no Cap boosters... but, the lack of full point, SB & MWD is horrible The Active Armor Myrmi** has Full Point, Sensor Booster, MWD, but she needs to carry Boosters & doesn't tank that much, even with all level 5 ^^ Same goes for the Ishtar... - Lyy
Hardtail Ever Flow Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.12.14 17:48:00 - [9] Originally by: Jalif Passive Tank vs Active Tank I was wondering why people don't use active tanks anymore. Any pvp-er knows that having a passive tank is the way to go within the game. Its like if you don't have a falcon as backup, you might aswell go home. Im using the hurricane as example: (im using here an example of an armor tanker but this should be also aplied to shields) For an effective Active tank you often need: 2x Repair Systems 3x Active Hardners 1x Damage Control (And a Cap Booster to support) For a effective Passive tank you need: 1x 1600mm Plate 2x EANM 1x Damage Control A passive tank has clearly an advantage over a active tank. No cap use & less slots (including in the mid) and still more effective then a active tank (even supported with rigs). And lets not forget about the fact that the passive tank can now fit 2 extra mods in the low for extra damage. Also able to have a good active armor tank you need more skills then a passive. Active: Capacitor Skills, Passive & Active Armor skills Passive: Passive skills only How can this be balanced? By using more slots & capacitor it is still less effective then a passive tank. And lets not forget about the fact you need more skillpoints to have a good active tank. There is no balance between the amount of cap, slots & skills that you use. What if What if this was balanced? Meaning that active tank is better then passive. I would expect the following: - Amarr isn't the FOTM & it will be balanced compared to the other races. - Minmatar get their little balance that they need, because their guns don't use capacitor anyway (makes them a bit populair again. Lets face it, they are the underdogs at this very moment) - Balances the ships with an active armor tank (Gallente) - Balances the ships with an active shield tank (Caldari & Minmatar) - The people who invest time in one race get their reward back compared to those who fly FOTM. - Solo pvp might have a comeback. Its not about fitting a t2 passive tank with t2 guns anymore & then fly in a gang or fleet. Those people who truelly focus on their skills to get the best out of it will be rewarded. Futher Balancing Ships that are original armor tankers are sometimes shield tanking. I see even Harbingers fitting 2x Shield extenders on their ships. This doesn't fit in the amarrian perspective. Also I saw ishtars & myrmidons having a shieldtank. I mean... wtf? They are bloody armor tankers and not shield tankers. This kind of stuff need a balance/nerf too. logical inconsistency detected
F4LC0N	Posted - 2008.12.14 19:44:00 - [10] Active tanking is better in 1 vs 1 or 2 situations and passive is better when facing multiple targets where they would insta pop your active tanked ship cause of the low hp

Inara Subaka Caldari the united Negative Ten.	Posted - 2008.12.14 22:16:00 - [11] Originally by: Stitcher yeah, this is one of those things that isn't broke and doesn't need fixing. QFT.
rValdez5987 Amarr 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.	Posted - 2008.12.14 23:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Jalif Passive Tank vs Active Tank I was wondering why people don't use active tanks anymore. Any pvp-er knows that having a passive tank is the way to go within the game. Its like if you don't have a falcon as backup, you might aswell go home. Im using the hurricane as example: (im using here an example of an armor tanker but this should be also aplied to shields) For an effective Active tank you often need: 2x Repair Systems 3x Active Hardners 1x Damage Control (And a Cap Booster to support) For a effective Passive tank you need: 1x 1600mm Plate 2x EANM 1x Damage Control A passive tank has clearly an advantage over a active tank. No cap use & less slots (including in the mid) and still more effective then a active tank (even supported with rigs). And lets not forget about the fact that the passive tank can now fit 2 extra mods in the low for extra damage. Also able to have a good active armor tank you need more skills then a passive. Active: Capacitor Skills, Passive & Active Armor skills Passive: Passive skills only How can this be balanced? By using more slots & capacitor it is still less effective then a passive tank. And lets not forget about the fact you need more skillpoints to have a good active tank. There is no balance between the amount of cap, slots & skills that you use. What if What if this was balanced? Meaning that active tank is better then passive. I would expect the following: - Amarr isn't the FOTM & it will be balanced compared to the other races. - Minmatar get their little balance that they need, because their guns don't use capacitor anyway (makes them a bit populair again. Lets face it, they are the underdogs at this very moment) - Balances the ships with an active armor tank (Gallente) - Balances the ships with an active shield tank (Caldari & Minmatar) - The people who invest time in one race get their reward back compared to those who fly FOTM. - Solo pvp might have a comeback. Its not about fitting a t2 passive tank with t2 guns anymore & then fly in a gang or fleet. Those people who truelly focus on their skills to get the best out of it will be rewarded. Futher Balancing Ships that are original armor tankers are sometimes shield tanking. I see even Harbingers fitting 2x Shield extenders on their ships. This doesn't fit in the amarrian perspective. Also I saw ishtars & myrmidons having a shieldtank. I mean... wtf? They are bloody armor tankers and not shield tankers. This kind of stuff need a balance/nerf too. Through extensive testing ive found out the strengths and weaknesses of tank vs buffer. Each has its pros and cons, and they are balanced imo. TANK: Higher resistances Can repair armor quickly with good skills With good skills and proper fit, active tank can easily outlast most buffer tanks Can tank longer so long as the dps coming in isnt extremely high Buffer: Resistances tend to be lower to fit more plates Cannot repair armor in space most of the time When fighting fleets, it can allow you to live considerably longer, possibly long enough to kill someone that you normally couldnt of had you been fit for active tank Can fit damage mods with the buffer to get considerably more damage then before Buffer fittings require less capacitor, nueting isnt as effective. To be fair however, I prefer active tanks. I have been running a buffer armor ship and an active shield ship on Sisi, and there was at one point 6 fights that the active tank ship lived through, with the agressors then switching primaries to the buffer tank, and killing it.
Lea Re Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.12.15 01:28:00 - [13] depends on ship, type of warfare and your skills/preference for example imagine nightmare with passive ;] but for more accessible ships: phantasm ;P ok, ok... nighthawk for example - i refuse to passive tank nighthawk in pvp mode (see - scram fitted) or sleip or few other command ships so it is balanced as it is and if you get crystals, you active tank most of your shield tanking ships =)
Bohoba Caldari HolyKnights	Posted - 2008.12.15 02:57:00 - [14] Nutes and nos = dead tank pasive you have a chance :) ....................... 10.5 hours a day do you have what it takes ?
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.12.15 09:22:00 - [15] Simply make tank overheating as effective as MW Doverheating. Problem soolved. Active tanks Are superior again... for likes 30 seconds .. :) ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Raguun LDK Kraftwerk.	Posted - 2008.12.15 09:34:00 - [16] Originally by: Bohoba Nutes and nos = dead tank pasive you have a chance :) Minmatar + neuts + pasive tank = you dont care :D Amarr + neuts + active tank = useless ship. And no, this works very well and needs no balance.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2008.12.15 10:31:00 - [17] You have the right idea, but are barking up the wrong tree. The issue is the passive tanking modules and the fact that they haven't changed at all despite numerous HP buffs, DPS rebalances and the addition of Rigs. There is currently no significant penalty for buffer tanking! Active tanks, like you say, require more slots and more importantly a lot more grid/cpu than buffers. Result is that you can buffer and still have room for insane gank .. what happened to the either/or? T1 cruisers and frigates can quadruple+ their hitpoints and still have fitting room for significant offensive weapons. BC's are bastard children, stuck 'twixt Cruisers and Battleships .. yet they still manage to achieve BS hitpoints without noticeable performance decrease. What needs to be done: All the buffer modules need to be rebalanced. Battleships modules should not fit Cruisers without completely ruining the rest of the fitting .. Cruiser modules should not fit on Frigates without completely ruining the rest of the fitting .. Increase the Grid and CPU requirements of buffer modules so that a passive tank set up requires AT LEAST the same Grid/CPU as an active tank. Keep in mind that they retain they retain their neut and lag proofing which are major downsides to active tanking.
Shate Def The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.12.15 11:11:00 - [18] Originally by: Jalif Also I saw ishtars & myrmidons having a shieldtank. I mean... wtf? They are bloody armor tankers and not shield tankers. This kind of stuff need a balance/nerf too. hacs don't tank that well at although their bonuses suggest it. they don't have enough base hp and the ishtar for example very limited pg to fit any good tank. ontop of that neuts will ruin your day that why shieldtanked ishtars work quite well. use their superb agility/speed they got (that made nanoing popular in the first time) and the good dps they boot. i agree that armor repairers could need a slight bonus but nothing too big and fancy. plated fits with trimarks work well as do the ones with nanobot accelerators. point is that u will need atleast two of them to get anywhere and still their cycle time is rather
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.12.15 19:53:00 - [19] Edited by: Straight Chillen on 15/12/2008 19:55:03 Originally by: Hirana Yoshida There is currently no significant penalty for buffer tanking! My plated/trimaked mega that does a whopping 100m/s~ish would disagree. Active tanking and passive tanking have completly differnt uses. Active tanking trumps passive for any kind of NPC'ing, and is far superior in small scale/solo combat. The only time passive tanking is superior to active tanking is in big laggy fleet battles. Leaving active tank modules on will eat away at your cap, so eventually with large guns you WILL cap out, with just the hardners active. Waiting till you are primary'd to turn on hardners is a horrible idea with the server lag, as by the time the mods activate, you will be toast. Ontop of that when you are primaryd by 100+ BS, your resistances dont matter for **, its the little extra HP that can give you the time u need to get aligned and warp out. Originally by:** Hirana Yoshida Battleships modules should not fit Cruisers without completely ruining the rest of the fitting .. Cruiser modules should not fit on Frigates without completely ruining the rest of the fitting .. That couldnt be any more wrong. If you fit a 1600mm plate on to ANY cruiser u will have gimped your setup conciderably. For ex. A thorax with a 1600mm plate can only fit frigate size weapons. Id say thats completly ruined, no? Same goes for the assault frigs. You cannot equip a 400mm plate with out severly gimping your setup. (no mwd or small caliber guns) Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Increase the Grid and CPU requirements of buffer modules so that a passive tank set up requires AT LEAST the same Grid/CPU as an active tank. Keep in mind that they retain they retain their neut and lag proofing which are major downsides to active tanking. No. They already increased the CPU requirements of the most essential passive tanking module the EANM II. If anything, active tanking modules need to be made better. People need to get off this nerf nerf nerf nerf mentaility. If we keep nerfing everything to the point of uselessness, then soon we will all be shooting each other with nerf guns for lol points of damage. Also why should my armor plating, which is sitting on the ship doing nothing, use as much power grid and cpu as an armor repairer, That doesnt make sense from both a logical & balance point of view. As for the OP wondering about shield tanking gallente. The gal's can actually hybrid passive tank rather well due to having a large ammount of low slots for shield power relays. The Moros actually has the highest passive shield regen of all ships when fitted right. As for the myrm, it can be shield tanked to fit certain roles. The Shield extender Nano Ishtar is still a widely used setup even after nerf. Its just so good. Bottom line. Passive and active tanking have completly differnt uses. Passive (armor) tanking is completly useless for anykind of npcing and most small scale combat. Its only strong point is in big laggy battles. Having active tanks perform equally well in both scenarios is NOT balance. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.15 20:25:00 - [20] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Simply make tank overheating as effective as MW Doverheating. Problem soolved. Active tanks Are superior again... for likes 30 seconds .. :) Active tank overheating is one of the most efficient overheating systems in the game. A single rep will overheat at thermo 5 for an average of and a half minutes providing a 26.5% increase in strength for the time its overheating. Re: OP You don't need active hardeners for an active tank You don't need 2 reps.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.15 20:29:00 - [21] Originally by: Hirana Yoshida You have the right idea, but are barking up the wrong tree. The issue is the passive tanking modules and the fact that they haven't changed at all despite numerous HP buffs, DPS rebalances and the addition of Rigs. Let me take a moment to be exceedingly clear here. Since the introduction of the last 25% HP buff, Rigs, Overloading, et all. Active tanks have been nothing but buffed. Before the last 25% HP buff active tanks were worse than they are now and passive tanks were better. In all ways in all manners for all purposes active tanks are now better and passive tanks are now worse. Both types have their uses. But it was active tanking that got the buff, the shift away from active tanking has been an entirely irrational one or a shift away from the type of combat that active tanks are better in. No more, no less.
CrestoftheStars Recreation Of The World	Posted - 2008.12.16 00:23:00 - [22] Originally by: Rin Kaeda How would you balance different tanking methods, hmmm? I can personally already out tank a passive 1600mm plate fit Ishtar with a dualrep one, no problems at all (ie. the passive plate one will die long before I run out of cap boosters). I guess the same applies to other ships too, like Myrmidon , Hurricane etc. You forget that while in theory passive tanks look very solid, they rely on the fact that you NEED external repairs to keep your tank up or you will just die horribly. On the other hand, a well managed active tank can hold out for impressive amount of damage because of certain skills you neglected to mention: Overheating , Drugs (Exile boosters) , Implants (Slaves , Armor amount/repair time/amount) , Rigs. THOSE are the factors that push active tanks very high, compared to a passive tank that can only rely on few implants and 1 rig type. And you certainly don't need 3 active hardeners for active tank. Damage Control + 2 EANMs or DC + EANM + EXP is enough depending on ship and it's natural resistances. You claim to have experience, but still half of your OP is pure nonsense. you most seriously have some insanely bad setups, most passive tanks have around 3-10 minnutes of the dps of themselves (some even longer, the shield tanks have some insane tanks, nighthawk have around 600dps perma tank and around 100k buffer tank, wtf?! talking about insane?) most command ships and bs's will have around 130k+ buffer tank, and around a dps of 700 or so. we need to remember that eve is NOT a solo player 1v1 game, which means that all comparising should be done with ATLEAST 2-3vs.2-3 which means that the active tank of 600 (on a bs, well made) and around 20k buffer, will suffer 1,4-2,1k dps, would let it last for around 25-13,3 sekunds, and it would be down, it would take 92-61,9sek to take down one of those passive tanked ships (the more ships you ad the WORSE the active tank compares, and already with two ships, you can throw that active tank out the window :/ ), ss basically all 2-3 aktive tanks would be dead before they even got through ONE of the passive ships (and that is WITHOUT spider webbing, which btw they will do with garantee). passive tanks have a WAY too big advantage and no real disadvantage at all. suggention for balance would be to let the agility and the speed go down in % for each mod and not by a little but around 40-60% per plate/extender, to give some disadvantage for passive tanking (even interceptors have passive tanking mods on ffs). ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.16 16:54:00 - [23] Originally by: CrestoftheStars most command ships and bs's will have around 130k+ buffer tank, and around a dps of 700 or so. we need to remember that eve is NOT a solo player 1v1 game, which means that all comparising should be done with ATLEAST 2-3vs.2-3 which means that the active tank of 600 (on a bs, well made) and around 20k buffer A big passive tank will be 120-160k EHP depending on the ship. A big active tank will be around 85k EHP with 660 DPS repping for 3 and a half minutes. Comparing on the low end of passive tanks, the break point for our tanks, using real numbers is about 2300 DPS. On the High end, its about 1400 DPS. But that is just raw DPS numbers. It assumes that the enemy is doing full damage the entire fight no one has to warp out, no one loses drones, and of them ever die. The active tanking gang will start to lose out as first, but in the end, the repping will carry them through as DPS is lost on both sides. What the precise full efficiency is based on all available setups i do not really know, but around 2-3 ships you should be good for a single or double repping ship [a double repping ship will put those numbers around 4500 DPS and 2500 dps and while its for a lot less time its likely longer than either of the ships will be around for] Active tanking is a lot stronger than people give it credit for
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.12.16 17:08:00 - [24] Originally by: CrestoftheStars stuffs Passive tanks have plenty of disadvantages. Ever compare the align time from a passive tanked bs compared to an active, theres quite a considerable difference. and that few seconds can mean the difference between getting away, and getting tackled and killed. Also lol at your math. Really. Theres plenty of balance between the two, most people are just too blind to know the difference between balance and superiority. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint


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.