Tanking Rebalancing

[Marn Prestoc]

Idea
Improve active tanking. Nerf Passive tanking.

Why
As numbers increase the benefits of passive tanking make active tanking unusable due to more damage and effectiveness of remote repair. Not only do you get more damage from number of people but you get more damage per person due to fitting requirements of Large Rep vs 1600 allowing bigger guns.

How
Use percentage fitting requirement that reduces the available PG and/or CPU of the ship. A fixed fitting requirement will also be there to prevent oversizing.

Effect
At BS level the PG/CPU used will be around that of a Large rep currently, this will force most battleships that passive tank to use smaller guns, reducing range and DPS compared to active tank setups. Hence as people get to gang sizes that use passive tanks (not very big at all currently) there DPS per person is reduced but total DPS will go up from numbers.

Test Numbers / Examples

I've had a quick look at some numbers for PG.

Currently the PG use of a 1600 is:
- Abaddon: 2%
- Typhoon: 3%
- Harbinger: 26%
- Hurricane: 29%
- Zealot: 33%
- Rupture: 46%

If you change a 1600 plate to use 400 PG and reduce the ships PG by 10% per plate fitted:
- Abaddon: 12%
- Typhoon: 13%
- Harbinger: 31%
- Hurricane: 34%
- Zealot: 37%
- Rupture: 47%

For Cruisers the PG use goes up a little bit, this can be tweaked by decreasing the fixed pg cost which has little effect on the BS.
For BC the PG use also goes up a little bit (568.75 for first 1600 plate on a Cane).
For BS the PG use goes dramatically up, Typhoon (1962.5) and Abaddon (3025).

Setups for BC and Cruiser would barely change.

A passive Abaddon currently fitting (23982 of 26250):
2x1600, 2x EANM, DC, 2xHS
MWD, Heavy Cap Booster, 2xEW
8x Mega Pulse
3x Trimark

After change the fitting would have to change, two plates on a Abaddon = 5787.5 instead of 1000. That's 4787.5 more.
The first setup only had 2268 spare. So would have to drop 3 guns to Dual Heavy Pulse Laser.


A passive Typhoon currently fitting (14853 of 15625):
2x 1600, ANP, 2xEANM, DC, BCS
MWD, Med Cap Boost, 2x EW
5x Siege, 2x Heavy Neut, Med Neut
3x Trimark

After change the fitting would have to change, two plates on a Typhoon = 3768.75 instead of 1000. That's 2768.75 more.
The first setup only had 772 spare. That's 1996.75 So would have to drop a heavy neut.

Conclusion
I like the start, but think CPU will be the real sting in the tail to force the battleships to use smaller guns when plating.

[Marlona Sky]

I don't have time to read this more carefully, but this looks promising. Will read it closer when I get back home.

[Al Simmons]

What about shield tanking?

[Pattern]

Would be better off nerfing cruisers and bc's so that the EHPs where less than Battleships with top tier guns, not the other way round.

[Marn Prestoc]

What about shield tanking?
Slightly different, probably would only need XL booster fitting reduced? If a XL extender is needed a similar fitting structure to above would work.


Would be better off nerfing cruisers and bc's so that the EHPs where less than Battleships with top tier guns, not the other way round.

Not sure what your saying?

[Cavalira]

Passive tank is great, when RR is in the air or for small quick fights.
Active tank is great for prolonged fights where not so much dmg is dealt out.
For fleets you need 1600mm to survive untill reps arrive, if you intend to fit local reps to compensate for this... it'll go wrong.
I think active tank should be easier to fit. It will make solo PvP /Active tanking (Which is way more fun and awesome) more popular.
But then, for active tanking you dont get the mass from 1600mm and it's therefore a good idae to use active.

(I might be all wrong. derp)

[Pattern]

Would be better off nerfing cruisers and bc's so that the EHPs where less than Battleships with top tier guns, not the other way round.

Not sure what your saying?You are making it harder for battleships to fit plates, whilst keeping cruisers and stuff pretty much were they are. It should be the other way round given how much mods increase HP as opposed to base HP.

[Marn Prestoc]

Passive tank is great, when RR is in the air or for small quick fights.
Active tank is great for prolonged fights where not so much dmg is dealt out.
For fleets you need 1600mm to survive untill reps arrive, if you intend to fit local reps to compensate for this... it'll go wrong.
I think active tank should be easier to fit. It will make solo PvP /Active tanking (Which is way more fun and awesome) more popular.
But then, for active tanking you dont get the mass from 1600mm and it's therefore a good idae to use active.

(I might be all wrong. derp)

It's not just about making active better, whats the point in everything being able to use biggest guns?

It's about moving the point that the damage output makes active tanking unrealistic.

If your fitting active then generally you will be a little quicker and more agile than the passive ships, but passive have the longest range highest damage weapons and usually more ships to make use of them.


You are making it harder for battleships to fit plates, whilst keeping cruisers and stuff pretty much were they are. It should be the other way round given how much mods increase HP as opposed to base HP.

Woooaahhhhhhhhhh. Whats the cause for doing that? Just because cruisers get a bigger % increase in there HP doesn't mean they should be nerfed compared to BS. The question is SHOULD passive tanking cruisers be nerfed? Not just because of the benifit they get of 1 module compared to another ship class.

Cruisers MAR use a lot less fitting compared to plates so don't have the same issue as LAR when looking to active tank.

[Pattern]

Woooaahhhhhhhhhh. Whats the cause for doing that? Just because cruisers get a bigger % increase in there HP doesn't mean they should be nerfed compared to BS. The question is SHOULD passive tanking cruisers be nerfed? Not just because of the benifit they get of 1 module compared to another ship class.

Cruisers MAR use a lot less fitting compared to plates so don't have the same issue as LAR when looking to active tank.
From AHAC's, drakes and dual plated Canes, to 600k EHP damnations and T3's. The ability for these ships to fit tanks in the same order of magnitude of Battleships with rigs that cost a fraction less is kinda broken. It's why no one flies battleships anymore except for fleets, and thats before we introduce tier 3 BC's.

On the flip side, do what I'm suggesting to those sub battleships without increasing thier speed and they'll be as worthless as destroyers. So it's a relativily complicated issue.

Personally, it seems like your going about fixing active tanking in a round about way. I don't use it in PvP because you can get 1-2 minutes worth of repping in EHP (double in cruiser sized ships), which is more than most of the engagements I fight. The prevalence of neuting is another, and although this kinda changes the dynamic in that regard, fags are still going to neut.

[Marn Prestoc]

From AHAC's, drakes and dual plated Canes, to 600k EHP damnations and T3's. The ability for these ships to fit tanks in the same order of magnitude of Battleships with rigs that cost a fraction less is kinda broken. It's why no one flies battleships anymore except for fleets, and thats before we introduce tier 3 BC's.

On the flip side, do what I'm suggesting to those sub battleships without increasing thier speed and they'll be as worthless as destroyers. So it's a relativily complicated issue.

Personally, it seems like your going about fixing active tanking in a round about way. I don't use it in PvP because you can get 1-2 minutes worth of repping in EHP (double in cruiser sized ships), which is more than most of the engagements I fight. The prevalence of neuting is another, and although this kinda changes the dynamic in that regard, fags are still going to neut.
Can't disagree with any of that Pattern. I made the 1600 use more PG on BCs, so fitting 2 uses even more (I think it was about 1170 for two on a Cane), not a huge increase but if there was a similar CPU change it would force either a plate to be dropped or damage or tackle or a EANM/Dmg mod to ANP.

Damnation with only resistance mods and trimarks has the same sort of EHP as a fully tanked BS that uses 1600s so whatever is done to plates wouldn't really affect a Damnation.

Drake is a problem in its own right. T3 I don't know enough about the problems of them to say, could it just be a sub system change to balance it?

If you can do more damage, from greater range due to using bigger guns that out range passive tank blobs (or weaker tanks than currently if they sacrifice tank for big guns), in a lighter quicker ship (reps not plates) that can better manage range/run I would say you'd probably consider it more, which can't be a bad thing ?

Complicated is a good way to put it, hence I never expect it do be done and active tanking will never be truely balanced compared to passive, they'll just bodge it by giving a resistance bonus when self repping or something...

[OrangeAfroMan]

From AHAC's, drakes and dual plated Canes, to 600k EHP damnations and T3's. The ability for these ships to fit tanks in the same order of magnitude of Battleships with rigs that cost a fraction less is kinda broken. It's why no one flies battleships anymore except for fleets, and thats before we introduce tier 3 BC's.


Disagree. I don't generally fly battleships anymore aside from very close to home because getting caught = getting blobbed; no amount of tank will save you from a 100 man fleet raping you. They're just too slow in todays stagnant, huddled-up, jump-bridge ran, local insta-update null sec.

Agility is life in 0.0.