open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Racial Active Tanking bonuses: Fix or Replace!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:17:00 - [1]
 

In a straw poll of 105 EVE pilots taken in 2009, 16% said that active tanking bonuses where "...fine as they are".

With 56% believing that they should be tweaked and another 27% believing that they should be removed or replaced in some-manner. I'd imagine that would drop further if the question was refined to just "Are Racial Active Tanking Bonuses Good?".

Yes, there are over arching problems with active tanking in general most evidently exposed in the balance between dreads and carriers/super-caps as well as within the command-ship sector...

Yes, racial diversity in ship bonuses, designed niches and stats is normally good, but not for the sake of real game diversity and behaviour.

And Yes, I know solo mission runners also really love active tanking bonuses on there t1 battleship of choice however...

The fundamental problem with racial active tanking bonuses and the ships they are applied to are is that it limit's a ships flexibility - Although this is OK with Tech 2 ships which are usually more specialised than there t1 counter parts, applying the same bonus to ships many players would be expected to refit, swap out and use in more than one instance where ships with greatly proved performance in more niches, and larger niches exist has been a long standing problem.

In essence the benefits of the active tanking bonus over resistances come no where near to compensating for a niche that is now so small and getting smaller every year (limited to small gangs of up to 10, or solo PvE) - a the overall balance of use now heavy reflects in player behaviours, skill points and ship diversity to the detriment of the game ecosystem.

In addition, active tanking suffers some fundamental issues I don't believe can be solved without drastic changes to the sandbox nature of the game or addition of new niches for there use:

1# As soon as the incoming dps received becomes greater than double the strength of your tank, you would have lasted longer in an EHP setup.

2# You've got a choice between high fitting requirements and cap dependency for a relatively situational, and temporary form of defence in PvP.... or EHP passive/buffer tanking with less fitting and cap requirements enabling cap-warfare and/or RR.
AKA - a no brainier.

3# You have to fit and activate a specific module to receive a bonus - if you don't, your using the wrong ship. (A situation that is ten times more frequent with active tanking bonused ships than resistance bonused ships)

4# Pimped active tanks are kinda cool and boosters can give some pilots the edge in some situations, but as any gang with any common sense would be fitted with neuts, you'd more likely be leaving behind your very own expensive wreck along with a beautiful corpse. Failing neuts, there is always alpha to deal with.

5# Even the focus of PvE is changing, with ever more isk coming out of co-operative mission running in sanctums, W-Space and the general rise of neuting NPC's - somethings got to give.


So... What should we do about it?
I've placed multiple suggestions about this issue and so have many others - not that I'd ever believe we'd ever agree on one, but for a summary...

Possible Active Tanking Tweaks
● Dual Bonuses to active tanking and remote repair modules
● Dual Active tanking and overloaded shield booster/armour repair bonuses
● Doubling or greatly increasing the strength of the bonus

Replacing with new tanking bonuses
● Replacing shield booster bonus with shield recharge bonus, Armour repairing bonus with Armour HP bonus
● Replacing active tanking bonuses with HP bonuses
● Replacing active tanking bonuses with resistances

Replacing racial active tanking bonuses with something else
● Done on a ship by ship basis
● Done with some racial trait or flavour


Anyway, I hope you support that something has to be done, because I believe it is very much one of the most important issues regarding ship balance!

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:47:00 - [2]
 

BTW, I'm not asking you to support any specific fix - it's likely that the final fix for this whatever it might be may only appeal to 2/3's or maybe just 1/3 of the vocal player base, but having something we can't all agree to a fix on isn't a reason to let this issue go to the way side.


Biocross
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:51:00 - [3]
 


King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2010.12.09 19:59:00 - [4]
 

Most of the active tanked ships are just fine. The hyperion, myrmidon and cyclone are a bit dodgy with it (can only tank 1 ship of own class) but the others are pretty good. You've probably never come across a well fitted and skilled maelstrom, vargur, golem or CS if you're moaning about active tank bonuses.

I'm not opposed to boosting them a little, particularly the armor tanked ones. But to say that all the active tanked ships are fail in pvp is absurd. They are vulnerable to getting the crap blobbed out of them but that's true of everything. They specialize in fights that are smaller than 10v10. In that realm, they can be exceedingly powerful.

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.12.09 20:01:00 - [5]
 

Yeeah not liking the RR sugestion, this game has to much of that. Nor the Recharge Bonus, that would suck in PVP compaired to the Mael and Sleip that the active bonus.

Besides that well written and this is a serious problem. Perhaps you should consider making the modules themselfs more useful as a solution. That way Active might be common for all ships not running RR.

Etheir way I support a change.

Mike deVoid
Firebird Squadron
Terra-Incognita
Posted - 2010.12.09 20:04:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Mike deVoid on 09/12/2010 20:05:47
Couldn't you reduce the fitting requirements for active tank module, hence leading to a meaningful decision when deciding between active tank or pure EHP. As you say, active tank already leads to cap dependency.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.09 20:05:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 09/12/2010 20:07:00
Originally by: King Rothgar
Most of the active tanked ships are just fine. The hyperion, myrmidon and cyclone are a bit dodgy with it (can only tank 1 ship of own class) but the others are pretty good. You've probably never come across a well fitted and skilled maelstrom, vargur, golem or CS if you're moaning about active tank bonuses.
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
The fundamental problem with racial active tanking bonuses and the ships they are applied to are is that it limit's a ships flexibility - Although this is OK with Tech 2 ships which are usually more specialised than there t1 counter parts, applying the same bonus to ships many players would be expected to refit, swap out and use in more than one instance where ships with greatly proved performance in more niches, and larger niches exist has been a long standing problem.



Originally by: King Rothgar
I'm not opposed to boosting them a little, particularly the armor tanked ones. But to say that all the active tanked ships are fail in pvp is absurd. They are vulnerable to getting the crap blobbed out of them but that's true of everything. They specialize in fights that are smaller than 10v10. In that realm, they can be exceedingly powerful.
In Gangs of 10 vs 10, specialised remote repping logistics are preferred. Either way, the choice of either solo active tanking with JUST 5%-10% less efficiency or greater general performance everywhere else that resistances give is the problem here.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:35:00 - [8]
 

I don't think you realize just how powerful a good active tank is. My completely ordinary t2 fitted maelstrom can sustain a 3k dps active tank with 80k EHP and 800+ turret dps with a point. That's without any logistics. Throw a logi in and it's +1k dps tank per logi. Alternatively I could run around in an abaddon with 250k ehp, 0 active tank and 800 turret dps. Obviously 1k dps active tank is added per logi. Which ship is better is situational.

It's also worth noting that the active shield tanking ships can also be buffer fit effectively. The maelstrom for example can have 150k ehp with only 3 module and 3 rig changes from the active tank setup. You simply drop the XL shield booster, boost amp and cap injector for LSE's. The rigs are changed to 3x extender rigs. The end, you now have a 150k ehp buffer fitted maelstrom which is about what an unslaved abaddon has.

So I stand by my point that the active tanked ships as a whole do not need a boost, it's really just the hyperion, cyclone and myrmidon that could use a buff to it. The cyclone simply needs an extra midslot but a lack of slots is hardly unique to the cyclone, all the tier 1 BC's have this problem. The hype and myrm suffer from too many midslots at the expense of low slots. They don't have enough lows to armor tank effectively at all, whether it be active or passive unless you forgo all damage mods. So the problem is not the tanking bonuses, it's slot layouts.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:42:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: King Rothgar
I don't think you realize just how powerful a good active tank is. My completely ordinary t2 fitted maelstrom can sustain a 3k dps active tank with 80k EHP and 800+ turret dps with a point. That's without any logistics. Throw a logi in and it's +1k dps tank per logi. Alternatively I could run around in an abaddon with 250k ehp, 0 active tank and 800 turret dps. Obviously 1k dps active tank is added per logi. Which ship is better is situational.

It's also worth noting that the active shield tanking ships can also be buffer fit effectively. The maelstrom for example can have 150k ehp with only 3 module and 3 rig changes from the active tank setup. You simply drop the XL shield booster, boost amp and cap injector for LSE's. The rigs are changed to 3x extender rigs. The end, you now have a 150k ehp buffer fitted maelstrom which is about what an unslaved abaddon has.

Or you could fly an active tanked Rokh with a better balance in tanking effectiveness with the same cystral sets and boosters. If it weren't for autocannons, the maelstrom would be defunct.

Originally by: King Rothgar
So I stand by my point that the active tanked ships as a whole do not need a boost, it's really just the hyperion, cyclone and myrmidon that could use a buff to it. The cyclone simply needs an extra midslot but a lack of slots is hardly unique to the cyclone, all the tier 1 BC's have this problem. The hype and myrm suffer from too many midslots at the expense of low slots. They don't have enough lows to armor tank effectively at all, whether it be active or passive unless you forgo all damage mods. So the problem is not the tanking bonuses, it's slot layouts.

It's the same issue with the command ships and to an extent the t3's. You say it's not active tanked ships on the whole, yet you pretty much name 4 out of 5 of the t1 ships in question as being in need of a buff. *Shrugs*

Fistme
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:48:00 - [10]
 

I'm on board for sure. Going to be tough to buff active setups on normal ships w/o making faction, boosted, implant, and gangmod setups Broken. A combined reduction to cap use along with the rep amount could be intresting, dno how it would play out.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2010.12.09 21:56:00 - [11]
 

Quote:
Dual Bonuses to active tanking and remote repair modules


This.

Before someone complains about how OP mauraders in an RR chain would be, please remember their pitiful sensor strength. A falcon/rook/scorp or two and they'd all wake up crying in stations.

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2010.12.09 23:00:00 - [12]
 

The point is the bonuses are fine, it's the slot layouts on some that are ****ed. In any case I did run the numbers in eft to see how a 25% resistance bonus instead of the 37.5% shield/armor boost bonus would play out. On the maelstrom vs rokh with identical fittings, crystals, standard blue pill and a tengu ganglink, the maelstrom came out to 3301 (booster overloaded, lasts longer than cap boosters) while the rokh came out at 3227 under same conditions. I was surprised at how well the rokh turned out.

I am willing to support changing all active tanking bonuses to resistance bonuses based on this. But it won't fix the hype, myrm or cyclone. Their problem is poor slot layout, not bad bonuses.

Corina Jarr
Posted - 2010.12.10 03:00:00 - [13]
 

105 EVE pilots... so that less than 1%.

Sorry, I don't value the opinions of such a minority.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.10 12:36:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: King Rothgar
The point is the bonuses are fine, it's the slot layouts on some that are ****ed. In any case I did run the numbers in eft to see how a 25% resistance bonus instead of the 37.5% shield/armor boost bonus would play out. On the maelstrom vs rokh with identical fittings, crystals, standard blue pill and a tengu ganglink, the maelstrom came out to 3301 (booster overloaded, lasts longer than cap boosters) while the rokh came out at 3227 under same conditions. I was surprised at how well the rokh turned out.

I am willing to support changing all active tanking bonuses to resistance bonuses based on this. But it won't fix the hype, myrm or cyclone. Their problem is poor slot layout, not bad bonuses.

Thanks for taking the time to see where i'm coming from. It seems like a number of balance threads like this, and this relate to the same issue with people mostly either taking the stance that "active tanking is broken and that's the way it should be" or that "xyz is broken, should be nerfed to improve active tanking" with a minority with there head in the sand for whatever vested interest they have with the current situation.

Personally, I agree with you on the "fixing the issue ship by ship" with a less rigid slot and bonus system, but where not even at that stage yet. I don't think the CCP even knows it's a problem, and thats a problem.

Originally by: Corina Jarr
105 EVE pilots... so that less than 1%.

Sorry, I don't value the opinions of such a minority.

1/10 Poor troll.

Polling 0.1% of a population is actually a pretty common percentage for many RL opinion polls.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.12.10 13:00:00 - [15]
 

.

Korg Leaf
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
0ccupational Hazzard
Posted - 2010.12.10 14:19:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: King Rothgar
The point is the bonuses are fine, it's the slot layouts on some that are ****ed. In any case I did run the numbers in eft to see how a 25% resistance bonus instead of the 37.5% shield/armor boost bonus would play out. On the maelstrom vs rokh with identical fittings, crystals, standard blue pill and a tengu ganglink, the maelstrom came out to 3301 (booster overloaded, lasts longer than cap boosters) while the rokh came out at 3227 under same conditions. I was surprised at how well the rokh turned out.

I am willing to support changing all active tanking bonuses to resistance bonuses based on this. But it won't fix the hype, myrm or cyclone. Their problem is poor slot layout, not bad bonuses.


I dont really see anything wrong with the myrm tank wise, although on topic with the subject im going to agree to changing active tank bonuses to resist bonuses.
As i found out last night the xl cyclones tank is only slightly better than the xl cyclone

Ogogov
Gallente
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.12.10 14:52:00 - [17]
 

I cannot provide enough supports for this.

As a nearly exclusively self-loathing Gallente pilot, the irritation and misery imposed upon me by having to fly SHIELD TANKED BRUTIXES is one of the main reasons this gimped and badly thought out faction holds such appeal for me.

Kronos, Hyperion, Brutix, Astarte, Eos, Myrmidon... need I go on? All these ships are so badly thought out that their biggest bonus - these ridiculous active armor tank bonus - is ignored, and they are fitted instead with shield tanks (apart from the Kronos, which more often than not just isn't flown at all)

As for shield active tanks... I don't really fly them so can't comment.

Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.12.10 18:03:00 - [18]
 

Sounds good. It's lame how the Maelstrom etc are only good for pve really.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:34:00 - [19]
 

ITT lots of people saying theres a problem but not supporting the thread! YARRRR!!

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous
Posted - 2010.12.11 02:55:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Natalia Kovac
Sounds good. It's lame how the Maelstrom etc are only good for pve really.


With the right setup (implants, boosters and tengu) I assure you it's exceedingly powerful in pvp. The maelstrom is an example of an active tanked ship working as intended. Which is why I was so terribly wary of any changes to it's tanking bonus prior to actually crunching the numbers. It's also worth noting that the proposed swap of active tanking bonuses for resistance bonuses actually harms it's active tanking ability ever so slightly.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.11 16:54:00 - [21]
 

Not that I believe that the Maelstrom's active tanking bonus should be replaced with a resist bonus.
But if you did, it would lose 2% in active tanking strength, whilst gaining about 12-15% in RR, EHP, and passive recharge in various tanking fits, whilst gaining 25% more ehp and RR effectiveness with no tanking mods fitted.

Far from a fair deal tbh.

K'racker
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.12.11 18:30:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Pattern Clarc
W-Space and the general rise of neuting NPC's - somethings got to give.


was wondering how wh dwellers would deal with the npc fix. btw there is no general rise of neuting npc's. the only change is that wh npc which should have been neuting all along, now will.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1415820

Originally by: CCP Ytterbium

Posted - 2010.11.16 12:25:00 - [2] -
Report Edited by: CCP Ytterbium on 16/11/2010 12:26:25
Yes indeed, while balancing the new incursion Sansha NPCs we realized the Sleepers were incorrectly set, and not actively draining energy even if using the matching visual effect on players. This has been fixed on Singularity.

Please note this only affects the Sleepers however, regular mission/asteroid belt NPCs will not be affected.


tl;dr ? wh npc is too hard now plz change game... Laughing








Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront

Posted - 2010.12.11 18:43:00 - [23]
 

The answer, or part of it, is in point #2:
Quote:
2# You've got a choice between high fitting requirements and cap dependency for a relatively situational, and temporary form of defence in PvP.... or EHP passive/buffer tanking with less fitting and cap requirements enabling cap-warfare and/or RR.

Flip them around so that active tanking modules, with all their downsides are easier to fit than buffers.
Combine this with an overall increase in active repair at with an equivalent increase in cap use, and you either mix'n'match tanks, gimp your fit for buffer or gank-fit with active.

In answer to the question "Are Racial Active Tanking Bonuses Good?":
Hell yes, they are godly. Problem is that they scale worse than anything in game. Throw in more than a few dudes shooting you and the bonuses are worthless .. nothing else in game has that level of depreciation.

Maz3r Rakum
Gallente
The Imperial Fedaykin
Posted - 2010.12.12 02:02:00 - [24]
 

supported.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.12 03:28:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: K'racker
tl;dr ? wh npc is too hard now plz change game... Laughing

This isn't a petition to make WH space easier - I just want more variety in the ship types that can be used, in WH space, and in other areas of the game.

Crazy KSK
Posted - 2010.12.12 12:32:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Crazy KSK on 12/12/2010 12:38:39
reduce fitting requirements for active tanks to the same level as passive ones
increase active tank effectiveness overall
reduce armor repairer circle time to make it scale better ( reduce amount in relation of curse )
reduce module lag to make active tanks more useful overall Rolling Eyes
oh and maybe fix the fact that you need 3 slots for a pvp active armor tank and only 2 for a shield one (shield: cap booster+shield booster armor: 2xrepairer+cap booster)
okay most armor tankers have more lows slots than shield tankers have mids
one armor rep has less fitting requirements than one shield booster but still I feel like that is a bit wrong there

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.12 17:16:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Crazy KSK
...oh and maybe fix the fact that you need 3 slots for a pvp active armor tank and only 2 for a shield one (shield: cap booster+shield booster armor: 2xrepairer+cap booster)..

To be fair its relatively balanced 2xReps = Boost+Amp, so the number of slots required is actually very near equal.
The big difference is shields ability to provide its repair "on demand", which is much more handy than the clairvoyant armour mechanic "where am I in 12 seconds".

Jan'z Kolna
Sebiestor Tribe

Posted - 2010.12.13 06:20:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Jan''z Kolna on 13/12/2010 06:33:00

resists bonus sounds good , since it benefits both active and buffer tanks

just balance it so there's no lesser active tank compared to current state

cyclone surely would benefit from it - my current buffer fit has 55k ehp , with resists bonus it would be close to drake ehp, although still dealing 100 less dps than hurricane

possibly , resists-bonused buffer maelstrom would have slightly better ehp than trimarked abaddon


it is , after all, shield resistance bonus what makes shield tank on a drake so formidable

such 'new ' cyclone would have more dps than drake , but limited range; nicely balanced IMO

'new' myrmidon .... even more tank than drake , and widespread sentry drone usage... possibly new FOTM for missions

drake would remain best for c1-c3 WH

cyclone - awesome for roaming with scimmies


Hayaishi
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2010.12.13 15:14:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Hayaishi on 13/12/2010 15:22:14
I support this thread, because it is about time the Myrmidon and brutix got more useful pvp bonuses, for such pvp style ships.

Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2010.12.16 13:40:00 - [30]
 

Bump


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only