open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Christ, Fix active tanking or at least bring it in line.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.02.01 17:42:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 01/02/2010 17:45:21
Originally by: Banana Torres
The problem is that the uselessness of active tanking means that blobbing is encouraged. A active tanking Megathron is just a kill mail waiting to happen cause its cap won't last. But a fleet of RR Megathrons is an awesome thing.

On the other side of that argument, if that "bad" situation would somehow be avoidable, that would also mean that two opposing active-tanked Megathrons would never be able to kill eachother off, fighting to a standstill.
Which is IMHO worse than the current situation.


This is not something that can be "fixed" as long as the way weapons work in EVE is not radically altered (to a much more CPU-intensive way with lines of fire, obstructions/cover, etc)... and only after that some fine-tuning of EHP/repperpower/firepower/ranges can begin anew.

Esola
Posted - 2010.02.01 17:47:00 - [32]
 

It's a team game. I would never expect solo tanking to ever match that possible with multiple players.

Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Posted - 2010.02.01 18:04:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Banana Torres on 01/02/2010 18:04:37
Originally by: Akita T
On the other side of that argument, if that "bad" situation would somehow be avoidable, that would also mean that two opposing active-tanked Megathrons would never be able to kill eachother off, fighting to a standstill.


Then it comes down to the skill of the individual pilots, which IMO is how it should be.

Before t2 weapons became de rigueur fights did end in stalemate, where neither party could break the others tank. Maybe it the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia, but I would return to those days in an instant.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.02.01 18:19:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Banana Torres
Originally by: Tippia
So explain what the problem is or just accept that there isn't one.
The problem is that the uselessness of active tanking means that blobbing is encouraged.
And you're sure it's not the other way around? That because of blobbing, active tanking is (supposedly) useless?

And it comes back to the original question: how would you fix it? More damage > any tank you can fit. How will improving active tanking make people less willing to blob?

Mire Stoude
The Undesirables
Posted - 2010.02.01 18:22:00 - [35]
 

I think they need to make active tanking drain far less cap than it currently does. Not including the use of cap boosters, if you setup a dominix to gank 1000 dps, it is cap stable for about 2 minutes. If you setup a domi to tank 1000 dps (or as close as possible), it is cap stable for about 30 seconds.

Gabriel Karade
Gallente
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2010.02.01 18:32:00 - [36]
 

I'm not particularly fond of active tanking (repairing), mostly from an RP sense I guess, but also because of the way it promotes a linear relationship between damage and damage taken. i.e. I shoot you for 50 damage, you loose 50 HP's, I shoot you down to 0 HP, you magically explode...

I would love to see a different mechanism, i.e. armour/shield vs. armour/shield penetration, behind armour/shield effects (read: systems damage). The last one there, systems damage, would have a huge impact on distributing fire in fleet fights.

*continues dreaming of the day* Cool

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2010.02.01 18:37:00 - [37]
 

I'd be all for getting rid of it entirely tbh......

Make **** simpler.

Calx Pugnus
Posted - 2010.02.01 18:42:00 - [38]
 

You really have no concept of game balance/mechanics do you?

Tanking is relative in PvP. How many ships do you think a BC should be able to tank, or how much DPS to quantify it better? What does this do to the balance of every other ship? What does this do to PvE?

No matter how strong you make an active tank, it is going to crumble once there are enough ships shooting at it. You want a BC to be able to actively tank, say, another BC? Great, you just eliminated BC 1v1 as neither ship will be able to break the others tank. This also means that any ship doing less damage than a BC has no chance of taking one down. Congratulations, you have turned EVE into WoW where a level 40 (cruiser) has no chance of ever besting a level 60 (BC).

There's nothing wrong with active tanking if used in the right situations. People have simply realized the advantages of using a buffer instead when it's appropriate.

Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:06:00 - [39]
 

The problem is that buffer tanks are FAR easier to fit, require zero cap to run, and are way more fleet friendly (read: remote reps)

Local tanks should ALSO increase your buffer (add +armor/shield to reps/boosters) lower the cap use. Increase fittings for Plates/extenders.

And finally, Remote reps also take a portion of cap from the person it is being used on. (if that person is out of cap they still work, just not as good). Maybe even stacking penalties on remote reps, though I don't think that is necessary (yet).

kingofallgimps
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:07:00 - [40]
 

Nothing wrong with active tanking. Had a great fight last night in an active blaster rokh vs two phoons, only carrier and blue pill running out failed me :).

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:09:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Last Wolf
The problem is that buffer tanks are FAR easier to fit, require zero cap to run, and are way more fleet friendly (read: remote reps)
And why is that a problem?

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:15:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Megan Maynard on 01/02/2010 19:16:33
Originally by: kingofallgimps
Nothing wrong with active tanking. Had a great fight last night in an active blaster rokh vs two phoons, only carrier and blue pill running out failed me :).


Mael, Myrm, Rokh, all of these ships have active tank bonuses and work well NOW.

I'm talking about ships without active tank bonuses dammit. Ships that have a choice to passive or active tank.

Originally by: Last Wolf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that buffer tanks are FAR easier to fit, require zero cap to run, and are way more fleet friendly (read: remote reps)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And why is that a problem?

Because it's getting to the point where no one is doing anything else. There are no options. It's the same situation back when NOS was still king. You fit it that way or you died.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:21:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
Quote:
And why is that a problem?
Because it's getting to the point where no one is doing anything else. There are no options.
Yes there are, it's just that you fit for the purpose, and active tanking has plenty of purpose still (basically any situation where you'll be facing low DPS and there are tons of those).

If you don't see it, maybe it's because you're not engaging in situations where it would be fitting… hmmm?

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:22:00 - [44]
 

Hmmmm, here I thought I was the only one with this particularly pet peeve Laughing
Originally by: Calx Pugnus
You really have no concept of game balance/mechanics do you? ....

That is the hurdle that needs to be overcome. To make active repair viable in solo/small-gang scenarios without making it impossible to beat.

Problem we are facing currently, one aggravated by the cheaper small/medium rigs, is that buffer tanking is superior to active tanking in almost all encounters. Overall EHP has quadrupled or so in the last few years while dps has remained largely static.
Local repair has been reduced to something you only use when doing PvE content and that is just sad/wrong.

My favourite solution is to increase repaired amount and activation cost by an insane amount.
With both extremely high it becomes beneficial to wait for as long as possible so as to not waste repair/cap allowing hull-bleed/volley-pops and it becomes very susceptible to capacitor status making boosting/neuting even more tactical weapons.

If it breaks PvE then rats can get a nice damage boost, which will incidentally limit the usefulness of the heinous passive shield tanks as an added bonus.

Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:29:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Last Wolf on 01/02/2010 19:30:46
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Hmmmm, here I thought I was the only one with this particularly pet peeve Laughing
Originally by: Calx Pugnus
You really have no concept of game balance/mechanics do you? ....

That is the hurdle that needs to be overcome. To make active repair viable in solo/small-gang scenarios without making it impossible to beat.

Problem we are facing currently, one aggravated by the cheaper small/medium rigs, is that buffer tanking is superior to active tanking in almost all encounters. Overall EHP has quadrupled or so in the last few years while dps has remained largely static.
Local repair has been reduced to something you only use when doing PvE content and that is just sad/wrong.

My favourite solution is to increase repaired amount and activation cost by an insane amount.
With both extremely high it becomes beneficial to wait for as long as possible so as to not waste repair/cap allowing hull-bleed/volley-pops and it becomes very susceptible to capacitor status making boosting/neuting even more tactical weapons.

If it breaks PvE then rats can get a nice damage boost, which will incidentally limit the usefulness of the heinous passive shield tanks as an added bonus.


So you're saying you want burst active tanking, instead of a "slow but steady" approach to active tanking. Interesting. I think I could like that. Over all DPS tanked could remain largely unchanged, but it would be way more useful when being focus fired on.

Sumelar
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:35:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Sumelar on 01/02/2010 19:36:52
When did CCP hire CCP?

I mean, it's a good company, but I think He could do better.

Originally by: Megan Maynard

Who cares, this thread isn't about the broken mechanics of missions and ratting.


Everyone, including CCP cares, because when you change something in one part of the game it affects everything else. Don't make stupid comments like this if you want people to take you seriously.

Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2010.02.01 19:36:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Last Wolf
Edited by: Last Wolf on 01/02/2010 19:30:46
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Hmmmm, here I thought I was the only one with this particularly pet peeve Laughing
Originally by: Calx Pugnus
You really have no concept of game balance/mechanics do you? ....

That is the hurdle that needs to be overcome. To make active repair viable in solo/small-gang scenarios without making it impossible to beat.

Problem we are facing currently, one aggravated by the cheaper small/medium rigs, is that buffer tanking is superior to active tanking in almost all encounters. Overall EHP has quadrupled or so in the last few years while dps has remained largely static.
Local repair has been reduced to something you only use when doing PvE content and that is just sad/wrong.

My favourite solution is to increase repaired amount and activation cost by an insane amount.
With both extremely high it becomes beneficial to wait for as long as possible so as to not waste repair/cap allowing hull-bleed/volley-pops and it becomes very susceptible to capacitor status making boosting/neuting even more tactical weapons.

If it breaks PvE then rats can get a nice damage boost, which will incidentally limit the usefulness of the heinous passive shield tanks as an added bonus.


So you're saying you want burst active tanking, instead of a "slow but steady" approach to active tanking. Interesting. I think I could like that. Over all DPS tanked could remain largely unchanged, but it would be way more useful when being focus fired on.


Agreed, I think I like the idea of burst tanking as well. Timed correctly, it could theoretically save your ass in PVP. Might even require the AFK mission runners to start paying attention Wink

RootEmerger
Posted - 2010.02.01 23:31:00 - [48]
 

A bit offtopic, but to make the repair bonus more usefull in pvp what about to make it work also over RR amount received?
Would this make bonused ships in rr gangs overpowered?

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2010.02.01 23:44:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
I'd be all for getting rid of it entirely tbh......

Make **** simpler.
Yeah, just get rid of everything that you don't like or you don't use.

All kids go through that phase but most of us eventually grow out of it (or become Libertarians Wink ).


SupaKudoRio
Posted - 2010.02.01 23:45:00 - [50]
 

AFAIK the way to fix active tanking is to massively buff 'burst' tanking, without bringing much change to 'sustained' tanking. For instance, increasing cap use to an unsustainable level (in the region of 200 gw/s for a battleship hull as an example) and HP per cycle by a similar factor. Or by decreasing cycle time and HP/cap efficiency.

Athar Mu
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2010.02.02 00:10:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists
Read sometime ago a proposal on shc, let a cycle take half as long and double the rep amount.



Only if you increased the DPS of missions by 4...otherwise you will get T1 cruisers tanking level 4 missions.

Darth Skorpius
m3 Corp
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2010.02.02 00:19:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
And mission runners are either A. Selling/buying isk or B. Casual Players.


time to burst your bubble on this one. i am neither selling nor buying isk, because i am too poor irl and keep spending my isk on stuff i dont really need or use. im also not casual, i spend 15 hours a day playing this game. when im not ratting in 0.0, or afk mining with a hauler, i run missions. i also know quite a few pvpers that run missions to fund thier pvp, so your argument here fails

Platoon Sergeant
Posted - 2010.02.02 00:30:00 - [53]
 

Allow local reppers to repair past the hp limit. For the amount, say 10/20/30/40% of respective HP for small/med/large/xl. Over-repped HP isn't effected by passive recharge, and gets greatly reduced benefit from hardeners/EANMs. Diminishing returns for multiple rep mods.

Active tank now has a place outside of solo \o/. Also a slight buff to shield tanking in pvp.

Also doesn't really effect pve that much.

The problem with making active tanking more bursty is that you can't out burst tank a gang, and you're even more vulnerable to cap warfare. Additionally, it's really of no benefit to any ship that isn't already considered a "good" active tanker since most of those use capless weapons. It would be a downright nerf to hybrid active tankers.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.02.02 00:50:00 - [54]
 

The one thing everyone in this thread has failed to mention is boosting the active tank bonuses on active tanking ships.

This would resolve a lot of the active tanking issues while ensuring that active tanking doesn't become overpowered across the board for any sort of ship.

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:11:00 - [55]
 

What's the appropriate solution? That's easy. Make large RR require 33% more fittings than a LAR, just like medium and small RR and all shield transporters. Who'd use an RR if it needed 3000 PG to fit? Problem solved.

Lekegolo Khanid
Arbeitaholics Anonymous
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:36:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Lekegolo Khanid on 02/02/2010 01:37:28
Edited by: Lekegolo Khanid on 02/02/2010 01:36:49
Originally by: Allen Ramses
What's the appropriate solution? That's easy. Make large RR require 33% more fittings than a LAR, just like medium and small RR and all shield transporters. Who'd use an RR if it needed 3000 PG to fit? Problem solved.


By doing that you would completely kill the use of logistics. On another note.. the burst rep idea would make shield boosters much easier to use then armor reps. I think the amount of armor rep'd, the cycle time and the cap cost should be cut in half, this might give you some more survivability against the alpha of large fleets while still not actually changing the amount you rep.

Edited for grammar and clarification.

Insa Rexion
Minmatar
Fumar Puede Matar
Posted - 2010.02.02 01:46:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses
What's the appropriate solution? That's easy. Make large RR require 33% more fittings than a LAR, just like medium and small RR and all shield transporters. Who'd use an RR if it needed 3000 PG to fit? Problem solved.


I could live with this...

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.02.02 02:53:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Mara Rinn on 02/02/2010 02:53:10
Originally by: Lekegolo Khanid
By doing that you would completely kill the use of logistics.


Not necessarily - the game mechanics are there to either: (a) allow logistics ships to fit logistics modules with 50% PG/CPU discounts; or (b) only allow logistics ships to fit logistics modules.

Kill RR gangs, but doesn't make buffer tanking any less attractive. On the other hand, gives ewar pilots a nice easy target which lets ewar become viable against buffer tanked gangs. Curse, Rook, Guardian/Basilisk become essential components of a roaming BS gang.

Logistics ships (T1 & T2 cruisers, Carriers) can still spider tank, and gunships become more focussed on their intended roles (ie: blowing stuff up). Gunships of various sizes still get to use local reppers, no need to break them :)

Rob Buie
Little Garden
Posted - 2010.02.02 04:38:00 - [59]
 

I use 2 primary ships when missioning and ratting. Raven is my mission runner and drake is my ratter. Looking at both tanks and my best raven active tank is about 200 less then my drakes worst setup. my drake can tank through any lv 4 mission allot better then my raven but my raven out dps' my drake by a good bit but smaller ships (frigates) are harder to hit with my raven as apposed to the drake being able to rip through those little buggers easy. with my raven i have 3 large CCC's and my drake has shield rigs and brings in more isk/h then my raven can hope to. When I upgrade to a CNR or when I get done training for my golem I hope to see a change in effectiveness in BS hull ships.

Spike 68
Preparation H.
Posted - 2010.02.02 04:40:00 - [60]
 

Anyone who says that active tanking is broken hasn't run into an intelligently flown hyperion/maelstrom or even a cyclone. An active tank can be insane.


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