open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Active tanking modules provide armour/shield resists too
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Author Topic

Hoshi Endashi
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:26:00 - [1]

A wild Alt appeared!

Active repping is ok for solo PvP if you fit the ship right but has inadequate utility outside of 1v1's for the following reasons:

*Active Tankers generally requires multiple repping modules, capacitor injectors, nano pumps and nano membranes to work properly, which makes them vulnerable to alphas and lacking DPS. So they are unsuitable for group roams where passive tanked DPS ships are superior.

*AT relies heavily on capacitor boosters which can be used up in a matter of minutes, giving AT ships a serious lack of stamina on roams. Cap boosters aren't for sale everywhere, but on the other hand most systems have a station with a repair service, which is all passive tanked ships need, or else they can ask their logi for reps. The AT's are too logistically intensive.

*With the present game mechanics it's logically impossible to balance them anyway. You can't make it so that active tankers can take enough DPS to compete in gang fights while still being balanced in 1v1 encounters. That's because armour reps only have two relevant attributes, armour rep amount and time cycle between reps.

So here's my attempt at suggesting a fix for armor tanking. Firstly compare the Gallenge Myrmidon Battlecruiser with the Amarr Vengeance frigate.

The Myrmidon has mediocre resistances meaning that a single active repping module doesn't achieve much at reducing incoming DPS, but players fit two or three armour reps on the Myrmidon and simply plow through the DPS of their opponent. This necessitates the use of double cap injectors, rigs, all low slots dedicated to the active tanking (so no damage modules) and non-racial guns (the ubiquitous autocannons) to save cap and fitting requirements. The active tanking Myrmidon ends up as a niche ship with lacklustre DPS and low cap-stamina that can certainly grind down individual opponents but isn't much good for anything else. A lot of people just ignore the ship bonuses and shield-tank it.

The vengeance on the other hand has great armor resistances which naturally reduce incoming DPS. This allows players to fit a Small Armour Repairer to take advantage of that fact and you'll see many Vengeance frigates which run active tanks, without all of the hassle a Myrmidon has to go through. They can fit damage mods and rigs and don't rely on capacitor boosters. Furthermore a Vengeance can roam about at will just as well as any passive-tanked frigate. The difference here is that the Vengeance is not forced into a niche fit in order to active tank.

Obviously one is a frigate and one is a battlecruiser and there are many differences in that regard, but I hope people would agree that active tanking ships should be more similar to the Vengeance than the Myrmidon.

That's why I suggest that you should recieve resistance bonuses in addition to repairs. This would obviously need balancing and you could go about that in a variety of ways, you could tweak the ratio of resistances to armour rep, add stacking penalties, increase fitting requirements of armor rep modules. As I pointed out it's presently impossible to balance active tanking between solo and group fights, because all you can do is adjust the amount of raw DPS that gets repaired. But what's key here is that you can adjust resistances and armour rep amount.

Obviously this would increase the durability of active tankers vs multiple opponents, as the increased resistances would tank far more damage than the armour repairing would. Against solo players a reduction in armour repair amount per/sec would be needed to balance it out in solo fights (the resistance bonus would have a similar effect to an armour rep bonus anyway). Active tanking would not replace passive tanking with nano membranes etc because it's still cap intensive.

Hoshi Endashi
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:28:00 - [2]

It would also make active tankers troublesome to kill when they have logi support, giving them much-needed extra durability in fleets. Additionally if players were using a single repping module instead of multiple mods their cap boosters would last much longer making them less of a logistical headache on roams. They might also feel more at liberty to fit damage mods like the Vengeance does (or an armour plate/extender, obviously they should only be able to fit smaller plates/extenders than passive tankers) which would further increase their utility in fleet fights. The amount of low/mid slots on some ships would need to be revisited.

Ideally, a certain amount of armor rep amount per/sec would be transferred to armour resistances so that a ship was similar to the way it was before in solo fights, but also better at tanking greater damage in larger battles. For example, I imagine that a Hyperion could fit a single Large Armour Repairer to improve it's resistances and then a 1600 plate, so that it was more comparable in fleet durability to a passive-tanked Abaddon while not being a copy of it. I think that the upper limit on how much raw DPS you can tank should be reduced in solo encounters, which could allow for reducing the cargo space needed to hold cap boosters.

Of course Amarr and Caldari already have resistance bonuses on their ships, which are much more useful than the repair bonuses of Gallente and some Minmatar ships. That's tricky.

Lady Spank
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:33:00 - [3]

Originally by: Hoshi Endashi
Obviously one is a frigate and one is a battlecruiser and there are many differences in that regard, but I hope people would agree that active tanking ships should be more similar to the Vengeance than the Myrmidon.

You are comparing a Battlecruiser to a Frigate
You are comparing a Tech I ship to a Tech II
One of those ships has a resistance bonus.

Hoshi Endashi
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:35:00 - [4]

Edited by: Hoshi Endashi on 23/07/2011 15:38:24
Obviously. But I only compare them to try and make the point that I think resistance bonuses might be the way forwards for active tanking. It's an anecdote about the differences in how you fit those ships and sort of sacrifices needed to active tank them, not A Serious Analysis Of A Vengeance vs A Myrmidon.

Lady Spank
In Praise Of Shadows
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:46:00 - [5]

An active tanked vengeance has an insane tank. It's one of the few things going for it but to suggest this should be a standard for active tanking in general would just make things ludicrous. plates do not provide resists, reps/boosters do not provide resists, either tank style needs to consider use of resist modules and not everything has to be fleet viable.

I don't want to sound overly negative about your suggestion but I don't think there is much merit in improving resist profile / active tanking.

I do however agree that passive tanks currently offer too much EHP. I wasn't exactly over the moon when CCP buffed EHP across the board since it impacts on solo and small gang guerilla tactics.

Hoshi Endashi
Posted - 2011.07.23 15:51:00 - [6]

Edited by: Hoshi Endashi on 23/07/2011 15:52:10
I think you focusing too much on the Vengeance example. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that active tanking ships would all have resistances on par with a Vengeance. And just because those things you pointed out don't provide resist bonuses now, does not mean that CCP could not choose to make them provide resists in the future.

*ack, spelling

Posted - 2011.07.23 16:05:00 - [7]


There fixed... 5% to resists make internal and external reps better... but 7.5% to internal is only good for internal... so make it so the 7.5% includes incomming reps... presto fixed...

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.07.31 00:20:00 - [8]

I think the key here is to have a pvp ship and a pve ship, and to not get caught with your pvpants down when taking a pve.


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


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only