open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked time to nerf the buffer tank
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Pod Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:26:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Mr Kidd
Originally by: Pod Amarr
Originally by: Mr Kidd
Edited by: Mr Kidd on 19/03/2011 11:22:50
I'm Gallente. The buffer tank is about all I have going for me in this game. So, if you want to nerf my buff, I'll raise you a passive shield tank nerf and a cap requirement for missile launchers.


If you think that you fail at flying gallenteRolling Eyes


Ok Mr. Amarrian, whatever you want. All I know is, at the time over a year ago, a friend and I sparred. With 3.6mil in hybrids, moderately mature drone skills and uber armor skills my friend's drake out tanked and out-dps'd my myrm. He had 1.8mil in missile skills and not quite uber shield skills. So, don't tell me there's isn't imbalance in favor of races not Gallente.


Gallente have problems but it is not with their Drone boats. Actually a Myrmidon would be the only Battle-cruiser I would think twice about engaging it in my Drake.
At low sp situation you mentioned you might get that impression since Drake is very effective with low SP investment. But in skilled player situation my money would probably go on the Myrmidon in a one on one against a Drake.
But this is off topic for tis thread

Dizeezer Velar
Caldari
League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
Posted - 2011.03.21 14:28:00 - [62]
 

Horrible idea. Do not nerf.

What's wrong with having some hit points so fights last 30 seconds instead of 15?

Noisrevbus
Posted - 2011.03.21 15:14:00 - [63]
 

My biggest problem with the whole thing is that: i have now read 3 pages of this thread, and i've yet to see a sound argument of why this change should be done. No one propagating for the change have given any explanation of what they wish to achieve with it.

Change 'this' because it's better than 'that' is a very poor basis for either forum discussion or game design.

With all things relative, the likelyhood an adjustment to your complaints changing nothing is pretty damn high. Are we seriously having this topic because you want to see more variety in rigs used? It feels more like some people are incredibly naive and think a buffer drop would magically solve the domination of blob mindset. I highly doubt it would.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2011.03.21 20:48:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Noisrevbus
My biggest problem with the whole thing is that: i have now read 3 pages of this thread, and i've yet to see a sound argument of why this change should be done. No one propagating for the change have given any explanation of what they wish to achieve with it.

Change 'this' because it's better than 'that' is a very poor basis for either forum discussion or game design.

With all things relative, the likelyhood an adjustment to your complaints changing nothing is pretty damn high. Are we seriously having this topic because you want to see more variety in rigs used? It feels more like some people are incredibly naive and think a buffer drop would magically solve the domination of blob mindset. I highly doubt it would.


Here's my reason for wanting a change

I want a choice to have to be made when fitting a ship, right now its a very simple algorithm

if ShipIsForPvP = yes
{
BufferTank = Yes
}

Its just that simple, I mean yes there are few cases where you would active tank something, but in >90% of situations the decision is already made for you.

Buffer tanks have so many advantages

  1. They're easier to fit

  2. They take less cap

  3. They're the same effectiveness no-matter how much DPS is incoming

  4. They're lag proof (dont have to be turned on)



For all these advantages I want some serious drawbacks like I posted before
50% PG reduction to armor repairers.
300% increase in mass penalty for armor plates.

25% reduction in CPU usage of shield boosters.
50% increase in CPU usage of shield extenders.

Vixisti
The Scope
Posted - 2011.03.21 22:22:00 - [65]
 

Amazing how many people in this thread assume that people only fly bs's.....

Also ideas like add 50% to fitting req's etc are just *stupid*. Eve is a finely balanced game always on the verge of making an unused ship or new FOTM so in a game where 2% is a LOT you might start your nerf 'ideas' a little more realistically.

freshspree
Caldari
Dissonance Corp
Posted - 2011.03.22 00:21:00 - [66]
 

Why not leave them the fu ck alone?

Hiroshima Jita
Posted - 2011.03.22 00:39:00 - [67]
 

+1 buff non tanky rigs so there is an element of choice and personal taste to rig selection instead of being mandatory tank slots
+1 screw nerfs whose motivation is 'because we feel like it' with no logic behind them

Shield Hurricane -> 6 tank slots = DC + 2 midslots + 3 rig slots
Armor Hurricane -> 7 tank slots = DC + 3 other lowslots + 3 rig slots

Considering the advantages of shield tanking and the difference only being one slot (when your armor and shield fits both have 2 gyros for the same damage + web instead of tracking enhancer) The hurricane isn't naturally an armor tanker or a shield tanker. It can do both although I prefer the cane for shield and the harby for armor.

The other big problem is that tank rigs aren't stacking penalized against **** already on the ship while pretty much every other useful rig is.

Katherine Starlight
Posted - 2011.03.22 01:59:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Katherine Starlight on 22/03/2011 02:00:10
Please do tell how an active papertank lasts in a regular fleetbattle.
The hamsters cries out in pain every decent engagement resulting in modules not cycling, modules such as Armor repairers.

Upgrade **** hardware / fix server side code > nerf things

Active tanks dont work in fleetfights cause the clusters wont let them cycle.

Aznwithbeard
Minmatar
OMGROFLSTOMP
Posted - 2011.03.22 03:00:00 - [69]
 

to the OP and anyone agreeing with him, active > buffer/passive 9 out of ten times. TBH only BC I wouldnt duel in my myrm/cyclone was a properly set up hurricane, and thats only because of the neuts. Buffer is fine, active is fine, tho I do support the whole "pirate implants not working on capital class ships" thing.

Doug Drafto
Posted - 2011.03.22 07:42:00 - [70]
 

Passive/buffer shield tanks need to be nerfed. Nerfing armor buffer tanks is basically nerfing Gallente which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Gallente is already such a **** race to fly they really don't need any more nerfing. The nano nerf really just further nerfed them. Minmatar is still fast, with autocannon Vagabonds are hitting at 20km out, and they have huge shields and warp instantly. The penalty? +25 sig radius... lol really? Try flying a cruiser size ship with a 1600mm plate on where you can only hit up to 4km with webifiers that only slow 60% and a high likely hood you will be scrambled and thus your MWD will no longer work. Oh yeah, and you have no cap at all from running the MWD for hours to get there and the power hungry guns.

Nerf passive shield tanking. Leave passive armor tanks alone. Fix gallente for heavens sake.

Korg Tronix
Heretic Army
Posted - 2011.03.22 09:33:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Doug Drafto
Passive/buffer shield tanks need to be nerfed. Nerfing armor buffer tanks is basically nerfing Gallente which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Gallente is already such a **** race to fly they really don't need any more nerfing. The nano nerf really just further nerfed them. Minmatar is still fast, with autocannon Vagabonds are hitting at 20km out, and they have huge shields and warp instantly. The penalty? +25 sig radius... lol really? Try flying a cruiser size ship with a 1600mm plate on where you can only hit up to 4km with webifiers that only slow 60% and a high likely hood you will be scrambled and thus your MWD will no longer work. Oh yeah, and you have no cap at all from running the MWD for hours to get there and the power hungry guns.

Nerf passive shield tanking. Leave passive armor tanks alone. Fix gallente for heavens sake.


Sorry did you just say that Vagabonds have HUGE shields. Have you ever actually flown one?

Also a buff to active tanking would actually improve gallente a bit as they are meant to active tank.
That being said I think the current mechanics around buffer and active are fine and the main reason people dont like flying active is due to it not doing anything to save you when the blob lands, well that and the fact everyone fills utility highs with neuts.

Doug Drafto
Posted - 2011.03.22 14:43:00 - [72]
 

I agree a buff to active armour tanking would help Gallente out some. I meant with an extender. You get 2.6k+ shields for 25 sig... thats ridiculous trade off, the first one is basically penalty free.

Korg Tronix
Heretic Army
Posted - 2011.03.22 14:58:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Doug Drafto
I agree a buff to active armour tanking would help Gallente out some. I meant with an extender. You get 2.6k+ shields for 25 sig... thats ridiculous trade off, the first one is basically penalty free.


While I agree the sig penalty isnt alot, shield extenders on a vaga are hardly penalty free. It still comes with all the drawbacks (not alot) of shield tanks namely lack of tank or cap utility (boosters). The tank on a Vaga though is speed if he is scrammed he is dead as his shield tank sucks balls.

Silas Shaw
Coffee Hub
Posted - 2011.03.22 20:05:00 - [74]
 

(I realize that this is a troll thread, as so many seem to have missed, but I'll play anyway.)


Bombers vote for active tanks! No buffer, no problem!

Batelle
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2011.03.22 21:40:00 - [75]
 

I'm only unhappy that the gallente BC's end up with a bonus that is so often useless unless you're dropping exile and fighting in very limited circumstances.

praznimrak
Gallente
Level Up
Posted - 2011.03.23 00:03:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: praznimrak on 23/03/2011 00:03:34
Hmmm...

This is all wrong.Eve is so complex so there is no real solution to this problem.Nerf that,boost this...i mean the game is FULL of ships and moduls that are not being used cose thay are patethic and person using it woud just end up losing ship real fast.And saying that most of pvp fights just hapends too fast,ther is no time to think a lot and do real strategi,and after some time playing you know so easly all ships fitings and so on.
I did dedicate to frigs pvp and most of the fights ,and i hade more less 1000, hapends so fast that for a person not playing eve and watching me fighting only one question comes out to his mind"what was that,was that a fight??"...

Pasiv,activ,rigs or not,ships and moduls not being used,unbalance...game cry for improvments but meanwhile we all fly the ship that works and moduls that will make us live and right now pasiv tanks work well so keep on till ccp Balance(read unbalance) some other part of game and make some other ships awsom and actual one crap....
Praz


Aglais
Caldari
Posted - 2011.03.23 01:57:00 - [77]
 

Nerf buffer tanks so that everything dies in a fire against Curses and Pilgrims.

"But cap booster charges."

they run out.

I absolutely refuse to put a shield booster on my Gila. Or Drake.

AstarothPrime
Posted - 2011.03.23 12:24:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: AstarothPrime on 23/03/2011 12:24:43
Originally by: Pod Amarr

At low sp situation you mentioned you might get that impression since Drake is very effective with low SP investment. But in skilled player situation my money would probably go on the Myrmidon in a one on one against a Drake.
But this is off topic for tis thread


All lev 5 skilled drake pilot (im almost there) has a beast which does 750 DPS kinetic + drones, close to 80k EHP no holes, and even heals passively as if u had med rep II turned on... along with FULL tackle (point + web) fit

Regards

I.

Bottom line - buffer shield is great because of passive recharge.
- buffer armor is great because its MASSIVE

End of story

fkingfurious
Posted - 2011.03.23 12:39:00 - [79]
 

Anyone advocating this change has clearly never been in an actual fleet fight.

In a fleet fight buffer is all that matters because there is no possible way an active tank can keep you alive for more than a few seconds in the face of the often tens of thousands of DPS potentially being aimed at you.

In a situation like that an armor repper could have ZERO fitting requirements and you still wouldn't fit them.
Only if an active tank could generate more HP in basically a single cycle than an entire buffer tank provides would it actually be practical and even then only if you lived long enough for the reppers to actually cycle which in a big fight is unlikely.

On the other end of the scale however (very small scale) active tanking would be a good choice and here I agree that because of various factors actually fitting one is GENERALLY (there are exceptions) more hassle than its worth so peope don't bother. At this end of the scale there are adjustments that could be made but a buffer nerf isnt the answer.

Nominh Ehre
Posted - 2011.03.23 13:09:00 - [80]
 

So your logic is: That since buffer tank seems to be used more than active tank in pvp, something is wrong with..buffer tank? Rolling Eyes

Get a clue, please.


Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2011.03.23 13:26:00 - [81]
 

Buffer fits are fine - it's the active tanks that need a boost instead...

Diesel47
Posted - 2011.03.23 13:40:00 - [82]
 

Add more dedicated shield active tanking ships.

The only ones I can think of are Hawk, Cyclone, Maelstorm, and Sleip... Three of them being minnitard.

Korg Tronix
Heretic Army
Posted - 2011.03.23 13:45:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Diesel47
Add more dedicated shield active tanking ships.

The only ones I can think of are Hawk, Cyclone, Maelstorm, and Sleip... Three of them being minnitard.


Any of the ships with resist bonuses active tank nearly as well as the boost amount bonused ones.


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