open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Active Tanks in PVP
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.10.20 13:59:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 14:12:24
Originally by: Marko Riva

The thing is that I like a different type of gameplay and I really don't see how the current gameplay is HELPING you in small gang or solo situations (apart from the "lets see how many I can kill before I go down" stuff)



Then you can't calculate.

Look at this:

Current Hurricane duel (numbers are a good approximation of reality):
64000 EHP, 750 DPS

Tank Hurricane duel:
38000 EHP, 550 DPS, 300 DPS tank (note it is not a tank bonused ship)

Time to score kill:
(1) = 64000/750=85s
(2) = 38000/(550-300)=152s

Now try to break something which tanks more then a rep cane (everything! Try ganking a implanted Cyclone with 550 DPS Very Happy, ever).

Thank you, I'll take 1.

The "lets both turn our tanks on and see who runs out of cap first" is boring gameplay for solo action, and it just DEMANDS blobbery. There is no way you'd break anything which can tank worth a damn otherwise.

For blobs, DPS >>>> tank, since tanking is not a PVP role.

Show me 10 active tanked Myrmidons and I will show you 10 DC II tanked Hurricanes with 5 gyrostabs and post-dominion 720s killing them all, since they will one-volley two Myrmidons per gun cycle, which means 4 are dead before drones start even doing damage at any realistic range.

Tanking is NOT a role in PVP, because your personal tank does NOTHING for the gang until you're primary. If you're in a low DPS high tank ship, this generally means your tank does nothing until everyone else dies. Very useful.


Also: have you noted how much more actually useful active shield tanks are? Yeah, 3 gyros fit on most. You lose a slot of tackle over a armour tank, for a massive increase in DPS. Really big deal.

Also: Solo pvp isn't all about honourable 1v1 fights between equals, you know. There's a lot of areas where finesse IS required (eg, choosing primaries if you're engaging a gang - and not engaging a gang to kill some before you die, webbing that HAC which is 3x times as fast as you, controlling transversal, range, everything) as it is. It's not all a "burn to optimal, pew pew, collect loot" thing, not that "turn on tank, wait who runs out of cap boosters or gets omgblobbed" would be a improvement if it was.

DPS is the solo player's best friend so often, which is why despite what EFT says, the, eg. Hurricane does not suck in comparison with the Drake. Of course, now people will come to troll with the "learn to barrage" and "minmatar fight in falloff", but I'm saying how things really are.



A Ingus
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:02:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: A Ingus on 20/10/2009 14:10:50
Active armor's problem is the cycle time. Reduce it and it might be an alternative to plates in certain situations. As things are now an armor repper is just too slow even with nanobot accelerators. The cycle time on active shield means it can compete with (and sometimes surpass) passive/buffer shield in certain situations.

All active tanks are subject to neuting. This is what passive tanks have going for them as well. And if it's passive shield it will regen some even if neuted.

Not that it would bring any balance between the shield and armor passive setups, but it would be nice if regenerative plating actually was that. Have a real low regen, but a regen nonetheless. It would be worth fitting one with a plate, or instead of a plate, on a roaming ship.

Marko Riva
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:12:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Marko Riva on 20/10/2009 14:14:12
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Then you can't calculate.


I can but you misunderstood me :) I KNOW that an active tank isn't up to par in the short burst fights most pvp consist of. What I meant is that there's a lot of people who just pile on tons of EHP and then undock/jump into a blob and see how many they can take with them, while this can be fun it kinda shows how off the combination on of plates+rigs are atm. It's exactly like the nanofiber+poly crap from a while back; in itself not an issue but once you start stacking it up it gets silly.

The thing is that you're comparing a current EHP setup with an active tanking, and ofcourse that will be skewed to the EHP fit, that's the whole point :)


baltec1
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:15:00 - [34]
 

My active tanked retribution has lasted good year now and its still going strongWink

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:20:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 14:22:45
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 14:21:50
Originally by: Marko Riva
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Then you can't calculate.


I can but you misunderstood me :) I KNOW that an active tank isn't up to par in the short burst fights most pvp consist of. What I meant is that there's a lot of people who just pile on tons of EHP and then undock/jump into a blob and see how many they can take with them, while this can be fun it kinda shows how off the pile on of plates+rigs are atm. It's exactly like the nanofiber+poly crap from a while back; in itself not an issue but once you start tacking it up it gets silly.

The thing is that you're comparing a current EHP setup with an active tanking, and ofcourse that will be skewed to the EHP fit, that's the whole point :)




Yeah, but the point is if you neuter the EHP fit, the alternative is worse from a solo/small gang viewpoint, since absolute times to kill are increased, and the valid target selection is decreased (since all ships which can tank your now reduced damage output are no longer valid targets).

I would rather buff the active tank so its DPS doesn't make it useless in actual PVP anymore.


Sure, it might annoy people who fail so hard that someone does undock with a EHP fit, kill someone, deagress and dock. But... but.

Station camping someone is a equally meh form of PVP, and losing a ship like that without getting a kill is even more so. 3 gank BS and a bait BC will ensure that preety much any buffer tank is toast before he deagresses after killing the bait BC. Two could do it most of the time with max max skills (and if you have only two gank BS, a max tank Hyperion could actually *tank* them while the plate fit is just running on a timer before it dies).

If that particular bit bothers you so much, you can just ask CCP to increase the timer by another 30 seconds or something, which doesn't break anything else.



1600 RT
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:23:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 20/10/2009 14:12:24
Originally by: Marko Riva

The thing is that I like a different type of gameplay and I really don't see how the current gameplay is HELPING you in small gang or solo situations (apart from the "lets see how many I can kill before I go down" stuff)



Then you can't calculate.

Look at this:

Current Hurricane duel (numbers are a good approximation of reality):
64000 EHP, 750 DPS

Tank Hurricane duel:
38000 EHP, 550 DPS, 300 DPS tank (note it is not a tank bonused ship)

Time to score kill:
(1) = 64000/750=85s
(2) = 38000/(550-300)=152s

Now try to break something which tanks more then a rep cane (everything! Try ganking a implanted Cyclone with 550 DPS Very Happy, ever).



wrong math ftw?

assuming they have the same resists and dealing the same damage type.
the active tank hurricane apply 550 dps on the passive cane with 64k ehp so 64000/550 = 116s
the passive tank apply 750 dps on the active one, 300 are absorbed by the active tank and leave the passive cane with 450 dps on a ship with 38k ehp, 38000/450 = 84s

tldr in a fight the active cane dies 32 seconds before the passive one

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:25:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: 1600 RT

assuming they have the same resists and dealing the same damage type.
the active tank hurricane apply 550 dps on the passive cane with 64k ehp so 64000/550 = 116s
the passive tank apply 750 dps on the active one, 300 are absorbed by the active tank and leave the passive cane with 450 dps on a ship with 38k ehp, 38000/450 = 84s


Read again. Was comparing absolute times to kill if you neutered buffer fits. They're obviously longer if you would do such a thing.


I was not comparing the relative performance of the active fit vs buffer fit (although, if you want to stretch the point, the active fit can indeed win, particularly and specificially vs a trimark fit; it's called ambit rigs and permatanking the lol 150 dps a trimark fit does at 20km).


Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:48:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: baltec1
My active tanked retribution has lasted good year now and its still going strongWink


That would probably have to do with the fact that AFs are the only ship class in the game for which active tanking actually works well at the moment. Small sig + high resists are excellent for that.

Also, you have the "who would ever primary a Retri" factor... Very Happy

But yeah, active tanks work fine for AFs. Other ship classes... not that much.

Ulstan
Posted - 2009.10.20 14:52:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 15:01:36
Crystal and blue pill Maelstroms and Nightmares are good at shield tanking. (And Sleipnirs)

Exile dual rep hyperions and myrmidons are decent at armor tanking in very small fights.

That's about it.

I agree that active tanking is generally a poor choice compared to buffer tanking. And it's not even (always) that it is a poorer choice in terms of damage mitigated in your typical fight - it's that fitting one is often impossible, especially when you consider the huge cap demands necessitate a cap injector.

This tends to make active tanks much hungrier in terms of slots and fittings than buffer tanks.

I *do* like that the active tanks don't carry any penalty (increased sig size, or additional mass) while the buffer set ups do. That at least gives some small advantage to the active set up. I think branko already mentioned this, but I feel the active tanking rigs should similarly not be giving you a sig radius/speed penalty.

Rather than trying to increase the power of active tanking (which could quickly get too strong such that no active tanked ships could break each others tank in a one on one setting) I'd rather just see the fitting/cap costs reduced somewhat. There are times I've thought "I think this is going to be a small fight, I'd like to try an active tank set up!" but been unable to fit one without what I considered excessive fitting sacrifices elsewhere.

I'm way less interested in rather small disparities between armor and shield buffer tanks (armor buffer tanks have the slave set, better resists, EANMs, shield buffer tanks regen slowly on their own) than I am in the very wide gulf between buffer and active tanking. Both varities of active tanking, IMO, need boosting.

And it wouldn't hurt to add in active armor rep implants like we have for crystals.

Oh and chield transporters need to not take 1/4 of a ships CPU to fit :D

Borasatar
Posted - 2009.10.20 16:02:00 - [40]
 

Well... one way to look at it is to consider what all is competing for your cap... depending on your race: your weapons, EW/tackle, your tank, opponents' neuts, etc.

baltec1
Posted - 2009.10.20 16:09:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: baltec1
My active tanked retribution has lasted good year now and its still going strongWink


That would probably have to do with the fact that AFs are the only ship class in the game for which active tanking actually works well at the moment. Small sig + high resists are excellent for that.

Also, you have the "who would ever primary a Retri" factor... Very Happy

But yeah, active tanks work fine for AFs. Other ship classes... not that much.



Blah my thorax does well enough and when on a roam in 0.0 I tend to have a repper simply so I dont have to run back home after every fight unless its a buffer maller or Domi.

Arrador
Posted - 2009.10.20 17:01:00 - [42]
 

is it an oddity that the only ships that active tank well are cap ships?

Marko Riva
Posted - 2009.10.20 17:10:00 - [43]
 

only because there aren't any XL or XXL plates/extenders.

Ulstan
Posted - 2009.10.20 17:14:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 17:14:14
I'm a little confused by the people who look at the problem and conclude that the solution is to nerf buffer tanks.

I don't see how this will make people use active tanks more - they will amost certainly continue to use buffer tanks, either sacrificing damage mods to get back the lost EHP or just accepting the smaller EHP. This is because fitting and sustaining an active tank on many ships is a near impossibility given fitting requirements, cap consumption, and slot layout.

Also Branko, your posts are always a pleasure to read. o7

Vivian Azure
Posted - 2009.10.20 17:21:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 17:14:14
I'm a little confused by the people who look at the problem and conclude that the solution is to nerf buffer tanks.

I don't see how this will make people use active tanks more - they will amost certainly continue to use buffer tanks, either sacrificing damage mods to get back the lost EHP or just accepting the smaller EHP. This is because fitting and sustaining an active tank on many ships is a near impossibility given fitting requirements, cap consumption, and slot layout.

Also Branko, your posts are always a pleasure to read. o7


/this tbh

Large Armor Repairers fitting-requirements should be cut in half maybe, and Shield-Boosters and Armor Reps should have 25% less capacitor usage to make them perform as good as passive tanks, allthough there's still the Neutralizing going on.

Arrador
Posted - 2009.10.20 17:26:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Vivian Azure
Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 17:14:14
I'm a little confused by the people who look at the problem and conclude that the solution is to nerf buffer tanks.

I don't see how this will make people use active tanks more - they will amost certainly continue to use buffer tanks, either sacrificing damage mods to get back the lost EHP or just accepting the smaller EHP. This is because fitting and sustaining an active tank on many ships is a near impossibility given fitting requirements, cap consumption, and slot layout.

Also Branko, your posts are always a pleasure to read. o7


/this tbh

Large Armor Repairers fitting-requirements should be cut in half maybe, and Shield-Boosters and Armor Reps should have 25% less capacitor usage to make them perform as good as passive tanks, allthough there's still the Neutralizing going on.


if you're gonna cut large armor reps fitting requirements, then for god sakes, reduce the requirement s for Shield transporters...

Vivian Azure
Posted - 2009.10.20 17:37:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Arrador
Originally by: Vivian Azure
Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 17:14:14
I'm a little confused by the people who look at the problem and conclude that the solution is to nerf buffer tanks.

I don't see how this will make people use active tanks more - they will amost certainly continue to use buffer tanks, either sacrificing damage mods to get back the lost EHP or just accepting the smaller EHP. This is because fitting and sustaining an active tank on many ships is a near impossibility given fitting requirements, cap consumption, and slot layout.

Also Branko, your posts are always a pleasure to read. o7


/this tbh

Large Armor Repairers fitting-requirements should be cut in half maybe, and Shield-Boosters and Armor Reps should have 25% less capacitor usage to make them perform as good as passive tanks, allthough there's still the Neutralizing going on.


if you're gonna cut large armor reps fitting requirements, then for god sakes, reduce the requirement s for Shield transporters...


This isn't about remote repping.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.10.20 18:27:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Seriously Bored on 20/10/2009 18:42:47
Originally by: Arrador
is it an oddity that the only ships that active tank well are cap ships?


I've seen some interesting buffer hull tanked Moros fits...but it seems only real men fly them.

Also, I'm pretty sure any buff to active tanking is a direct buff to Kessah. I think Branco's ideas are very interesting though, with the exception that some folks out there will just use their newly freed slots to brick tank further. Though more useful in gangs, you would encounter even more setups out there that demand blobbing.

EDIT: How about something that actually contributes to the topic.

I'm actually okay with the dichotomy between active tanking for PVE and passive tanking for PVP. This might be controversial, but instead of messing with active tanks in general, I'd rather see all the 7.5% rep bonuses changed to 5% resist bonuses.

Sure, it reduces FLAVAR. But it allows these ships to perform well in both situations, instead of being pigeon-holed into a niche. (RE: The billions of both PVE and PVP Drake threads out there.)

AnKahn
Caldari
The Blood Wraiths
Posted - 2009.10.20 19:00:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: AnKahn on 20/10/2009 19:07:29
This has a lot to do with remote repping.

RR mods use utility slots (no penalty) and have less fitting requirements and use less cap.

You can't talk about local reps without talking about RR.

Edit :little tiny type

Proxyyyy
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.10.20 19:24:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Proxyyyy on 20/10/2009 19:27:36
Edited by: Proxyyyy on 20/10/2009 19:24:44
There is nothing wrong with amour tanking ships that are bonused for it.

The hyperion can tank like the maelstrom and rokh, but with duel cap boosters which means cap stability. Look at the brutix it can out tank the cyclone/ferox even more so provided it gives up on overall damage which is like 50dps without a mag fitted.

This whole shield hype and laser hype has reached such a level that i think im gunna start professing that hull tanking is better than amour/shield tanking. "its becoming that crazy"

Mind you im a caldari and minmatar pilot who almost always has to proclaim the benifits associated Ships and fittings. honestly touching the brutix which is by far the best tier 1 bc and the mrym which is prob the best solo bc in game is a bit much.

The mrym can tank any other bc provided it has the cap to do so. with rigs it can active tank a bs and with duel cap boosters its cap stable.

i dont believe that a brutix is better in solo sits with a shield/buffer. "yeah in fleets its not that big of a deal" The mrym doesnt have the fitting probs of the brutix and can have almost the same ehp as the harbinger with 1600mm 2x EANM and dc with electron blasters fitted.

The new hype on shield buffering your cane fails in none fleet sits and even within fleets the overall benifits which is mainly a increase in the speed not so much an large increase in damage, shoot duel repping it would prolly be better. Im not sure how these hypes come about but its a bubble that needs to be popped. With duel reps on a hype you still get full tackle an mwd and the abillity to take as much damage as a mael or rokh "imo its better"

ACTIVE TANKS ARE BY FAR MORE USEFULL IN SOLO SITS NOT SO MUCH IN LARGE GANGS

Marn Prestoc
Minmatar
Maelstrom Crew
Paradigm Alliance
Posted - 2009.10.20 19:28:00 - [51]
 

I did a comparison ages ago when boosters and overloading were quite new to see how much they help active tanks Topic From Ages Ago.

Quote:

Setup stats: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Preston85/activeVSpassiveSR1.PNG
Comparisons: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Preston85/activeVSpassiveSR2.PNG
Graph 1: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Preston85/activeVSpassiveSR3.PNG
Graph 2: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Preston85/activeVSpassiveSR4.PNG

Basic stats without images (all had hardwirings + std exile booster).
The DPS value quoted below is the DPS it takes to kill the setups in that time.

Plated vs Dual Rep (both overloading):
68 Seconds to makeup the EHP.
About 2250 DPS.

Single Rep vs Plated:
102 Seconds to makeup the EHP.
About 1500 DPS.

Single Rep overloading vs Plated:
78 Seconds to makeup the EHP.
About 1850 DPS.

Single Rep overloading vs Dual Rep (both overloading):
62 Seconds to make up the EHP (dual rep setup is catching up obviously)
About 2250 DPS.



Thats with a tier 1 BS with no rep bonus.

Personally I think Reps should have lower fitting requirements as per my post here.

The important parts:
Quote:

Small Rep: 6pg, 6cpu.
Med Rep: 173pg, 28cpu.
Large Rep: 2300pg, 55cpu.

RT 200mm Plate: 10pg, 13cpu.
RT 800mm Plate: 200pg, 23cpu.
RT 1600mm Plate: 500pg, 28cpu.

So you get nearly two 1600 plates to a large rep.
But you get nearly 2 small reps to a 200 plate.

Passive armour tanks with RR is so popular because you get the extra damage plus range as your saving fittings not fitting reps. If large was balanced like small then you would get more damage+range out of your active tank fits due to the saved fitting.

Quote:
TL;DR:
- Change fitting requirements so reps are easier to fit (if not easier to fit than plates). Hence increases range/damage of active tank fits.
- Make active easier to run for smaller ships by rebalancing cap booster charges.
- Cargo Bay and Cap advantage for active tank bonus ships.
- Dunno what to do about active shield, ask me later...

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2009.10.20 20:28:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 15:01:36
Crystal and blue pill Maelstroms and Nightmares are good at shield tanking. (And Sleipnirs)

Exile dual rep hyperions and myrmidons are decent at armor tanking in very small fights.

That's about it.

I agree that active tanking is generally a poor choice compared to buffer tanking. And it's not even (always) that it is a poorer choice in terms of damage mitigated in your typical fight - it's that fitting one is often impossible, especially when you consider the huge cap demands necessitate a cap injector.

This tends to make active tanks much hungrier in terms of slots and fittings than buffer tanks.

I *do* like that the active tanks don't carry any penalty (increased sig size, or additional mass) while the buffer set ups do. That at least gives some small advantage to the active set up. I think branko already mentioned this, but I feel the active tanking rigs should similarly not be giving you a sig radius/speed penalty.

Rather than trying to increase the power of active tanking (which could quickly get too strong such that no active tanked ships could break each others tank in a one on one setting) I'd rather just see the fitting/cap costs reduced somewhat. There are times I've thought "I think this is going to be a small fight, I'd like to try an active tank set up!" but been unable to fit one without what I considered excessive fitting sacrifices elsewhere.

I'm way less interested in rather small disparities between armor and shield buffer tanks (armor buffer tanks have the slave set, better resists, EANMs, shield buffer tanks regen slowly on their own) than I am in the very wide gulf between buffer and active tanking. Both varities of active tanking, IMO, need boosting.

And it wouldn't hurt to add in active armor rep implants like we have for crystals.

Oh and chield transporters need to not take 1/4 of a ships CPU to fit :D


Not quite, the active tank rigs carry just as much penalty as the passive tank rigs.
That should be changed IMHO to active tank rigs giving no penalty.


Onin Ra
Core Impulse
Posted - 2009.10.20 20:57:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Ulstan
Edited by: Ulstan on 20/10/2009 15:01:36
Crystal and blue pill Maelstroms and Nightmares are good at shield tanking. (And Sleipnirs)

Exile dual rep hyperions and myrmidons are decent at armor tanking in very small fights.

That's about it.

I agree that active tanking is generally a poor choice compared to buffer tanking. And it's not even (always) that it is a poorer choice in terms of damage mitigated in your typical fight - it's that fitting one is often impossible, especially when you consider the huge cap demands necessitate a cap injector.

This tends to make active tanks much hungrier in terms of slots and fittings than buffer tanks.

I *do* like that the active tanks don't carry any penalty (increased sig size, or additional mass) while the buffer set ups do. That at least gives some small advantage to the active set up. I think branko already mentioned this, but I feel the active tanking rigs should similarly not be giving you a sig radius/speed penalty.

Rather than trying to increase the power of active tanking (which could quickly get too strong such that no active tanked ships could break each others tank in a one on one setting) I'd rather just see the fitting/cap costs reduced somewhat. There are times I've thought "I think this is going to be a small fight, I'd like to try an active tank set up!" but been unable to fit one without what I considered excessive fitting sacrifices elsewhere.

I'm way less interested in rather small disparities between armor and shield buffer tanks (armor buffer tanks have the slave set, better resists, EANMs, shield buffer tanks regen slowly on their own) than I am in the very wide gulf between buffer and active tanking. Both varities of active tanking, IMO, need boosting.

And it wouldn't hurt to add in active armor rep implants like we have for crystals.

Oh and chield transporters need to not take 1/4 of a ships CPU to fit :D

The problem i see with reducing fitting on active tanks is that you might get plated + active tanked ships, then its will encourage blobbing even more.

Noisrevbus
Posted - 2009.10.21 01:35:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Noisrevbus on 21/10/2009 02:04:12
This has been up before, and the discussion isn't getting any more intelligent.

What exactly is it that you are trying to solve?

Making acting tanking more viable in a larger, gang-oriented setting?

Improving the ships with an active tanking bonus, because they suffer issues not capitalizing on their enough on their bonus?

Or is it another masked complaint about Gallente ships? Since some of you single out the active shield ships as "less in need".

If you're looking at the first option, captain Branko have already replied and outlined how that is against all logic. Trying to make active tanking on par with buffer in terms of burst control, is against all logic and a vain, fickle task. Personally i love the fact that a combination of buffer and good teamwork from RR or the involvement of specialised Logistics pilots in a given role is effective. That's part of the game and part of being an MMO. Teamwork, roles. CCP have cracked down on that enough already by mauling the Recons over the past few patches. Looking to diminish the prowess of buffer + RR will only diminish teamwork in favour of mindless tank and spank.

If you think RR is too powerful or popular now, maybe you should have thought about that before you cried about the Recons being too powerful. Try getting those counters more effective again, instead of ruining yet another dimension of teamwork or line of ships (the prevalence of active tanks does what to a Logistics ship?).

If you're looking to improve the ships with an active repair bonus in a larger group, because the ships themselves feel limited to solo or small gang work. Then the best suggestion have already been made ages ago: let the bonus apply to recieved RR. Meaning that when someone else repair you, you gain an additional amount of repair somehow related and balanced to your bonus. That is if, and let me repeat, if, we can determine that those ships really need such an improvement. I know one thing, and that is that there's far more ships out there with questionable bonuses that don't apply to all conditions. Come to think of it, i think there are more ships out there that won't utilize all it's bonuses in all possible situations than there are ships that do.

The only thing any suggestions about raising the repair amount or improve their damage output while maintaining their tank level is going to amount to - is overpowering these tanks or these ships where they are already good. Where they are already the better option. It won't do that much for them to help them where they have less application or use of their bonuses.

Wideen
Total Mayhem.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2009.10.21 01:49:00 - [55]
 

active tanks are spoiled in this game due to two reasons:

1) The omniprescent neuts

2) Blobs

Both of these basically makes an active tank less than useful.

I think CCP needs to at least fix point 1 because they remove one aspect of the game basically and are overpowered imo (yes I fly neut domi, curse etc). Reduce neut efficiency by about 50% (or another tweaked figure).

Hiroshima Jita
Posted - 2009.10.21 01:50:00 - [56]
 

If you want to buff the active rep ships it makes more sense for the ship to get a bonus to remote reppers it runs.

Velin Shade
Posted - 2009.10.21 03:12:00 - [57]
 

Don't forget the Absolution and Sacrilege, the most popular fits for both are active.

I suppose having a resist bonus and/or having Tech 2 resists makes an active tank more viable.

Davinel Lulinvega
Posted - 2009.10.21 03:39:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Velin Shade
Don't forget the Absolution and Sacrilege, the most popular fits for both are active.

I suppose having a resist bonus and/or having Tech 2 resists makes an active tank more viable.
Active tank abso? Ew. I'll stick with my 100k+ ehp thanks.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.10.21 08:42:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Velin Shade
Don't forget the Absolution and Sacrilege, the most popular fits for both are active.



Sacrilege yes, but Abso? The ones I've seen (and flown) have all been buffer tanked.

Darth Felin
Posted - 2009.10.21 09:29:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Noisrevbus
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 21/10/2009 02:04:12
This has been up before, and the discussion isn't getting any more intelligent.

What exactly is it that you are trying to solve?



We try to make active tanking viable under at least some conditions. Right now even if you want to active tank ship you usually can not do it without great sacrifices on cruiser+ ships as armor repairers and shield boosters scale much harder than plates/Extenders.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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